j  LIBRARY") 

WNfveasJTYOr 
CAtffOftNU 
S.a~,  DIEGO       j 

"^^  **«"W«MB^fe        ^ 


/»  . 


JOAN  OF  ARC 


BY 


FRANCIS  C.  LOWELL 


BOSTON,  NEW  YORK,  AND  CHICAGO 

HOUGHTON,   MIFFLIN  AND   COMPANY 

<£be  fitoersibe  pre?tf,  Cambn&ge 

1896 


Copyright,  1896, 
BY  FRANCIS   C.  LOWELL. 

All  rights  reserved. 


The  Riverside  Press,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  U.  S.  A. 
Electrotyped  and  Printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  &  Company. 


PEEFACE. 

To  most  persons  the  life  of  Joan  of  Arc  is  unreal, 
resembling  a  picturesque  legend  rather  than  truthful  his- 
tory. In  truth,  however,  the  facts  of  her  real  life  are 
known  to  a  somewhat  remarkable  degree  of  certainty  and 
in  very  considerable  detail.  Pure  legends  concerning  her 
are,  indeed,  common  enough,  —  they  sprang  into  existence 
within  a  fortnight  of  her  appearance  at  Charles's  court ; 
but  their  absurdity  can  be  easily  detected,  not  merely  by 
their  extravagant  improbability,  but  because  they  are 
inconsistent  with  well-known  facts.  The  life  of  Joan  of 
Arc  affords  a  striking  illustration  of  two  important  his- 
torical principles :  first,  that  legends  require  the  shortest 
possible  time  for  their  luxuriant  growth,  —  a  contempora- 
neous account  being  often  little  less  legendary  than  an 
account  separated  from  the  event  by  a  considerable 
lapse  of  time  ;  and  second,  that  the  wildest  and  most 
improbable  legends  may  exist  beside  the  most  definite  and 
well-ascertained  historical  facts.  The  popular*impression 
concerning  Joan  and  the  existence  of  these  numerous 
legends  have  caused  me  in  this  book  to  cite  authorities 
more  frequently  and  more  fully  than  I  should  otherwise 
have  done. 

In  the  management  of  proper  names  I  may  not  hope  to 
have  succeeded  better  than  other  authors  who  have  written 
of  the  history  of  one  country  in  the  language  of  another. 
In  this  matter  it  is  hard  to  formulate  a  principle,  and 
impossible  to  live  up  to  it  when  formulated  without  falling 
into  absurdity.  For  instance,  I  find  it  impossible  to  write 
of  the  great  ally  of  the  English  except  as  "  Philip,  duke 
of  Burgundy ;  "  and,  if  I  am  to  do  so,  I  do  not  see  how  I 


IV  PREFACE. 

can  write  of  Joan's  father  as  "  Jacques  d'Arc,"  or  of  the 
favorite  of  Charles  VII.  as  "  Georges  de  la  Tremoille." 
In  the  fifteenth  century,  the  particle  "  de  "  in  "  de  Bour- 
gogne,"  "  d'Arc,"  and  "  de  la  Tremoille  "  meant,  so  far  as 
I  can  perceive,  the  same  thing.  I  acknowledge,  however, 
that  "  James  of  Arc "  is  an  awkward  locution,  and  in 
the  notes,  at  any  rate,  I  have  sometimes  left  a  French 
name  untranslated. 

In  December,  1895,  I  delivered  at  the  Lowell  Institute 
four  lectures  on  Joan  of  Arc,  and  in  preparing  them  I 
made  free  use  of  the  manuscript  of  this  book,  copying 
sentences  and  pages  into  the  lectures  where  I  thought 
such  use  of  my  material  advisable.  The  invitation  to  de- 
liver the  lectures,  however,  was  given  after  the  book  was 
substantially  finished. 

January  18,  1896. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  THE  CONDITION  OF  FRANCE 1 

II.  DOMREMY 14 

III.  THE  VOICES 27 

IV.  VAUCOULEURS 37 

V.   CHINON 50 

VI.  POITIERS  .  . 64 

VII.  THE  SIEGE  OF  ORLEANS 78 

VIII.  THE  RELIEF  OF  ORLEANS 95 

IX.  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  LOIRE.  —  JARGEAU  ...  .  114 

X.  THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  LOIRE.  —  PATAY  .  .  .  128 

XI.   THE  MARCH  TO  RHEIMS 139 

XII.    MONTEPILLOY 157 

XIII.   THE  ATTACK  ON  PARIS 171 

XIV.   ST.  PIERRE  LE  MOUSTIER  AND  LA  CHARITE^     .        .        .  180 

XV.  LAGNY 193 

XVI.     COMPIEGNE 206 

XVII.  NEGOTIATIONS  FOR  JOAN'S  PURCHASE  ....  223 

XVIII.  BEAUREVOIR 236 

XIX.  ROUEN 246 

XX.  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  TRIAL 257 

XXI.  JOAN'S  EXAMINATION 277 

XXII.  THE  ARTICLES 296 

XXIII.  THE  CONVICTION  AND  THE  RECANTATION       .        .        .  308 

XXIV.  THE  RELAPSE  AND  THE  EXECUTION 326 

XXV.  THE  REHABILITATION 342 

APPENDIX. 

A.  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHARLES  VII.            ....  357 

B.  THE  INSANITY  OR  INSPIRATION  OF  JOAN  OF  ARC         .  364 

C.  JOAN  OF  ARC  AND  ST.  CATHERINE  OF  SIENA     .        .        .  368 

D.  THE  PROPOSED  CANONIZATION  OF  JOAN  OF  AKO  .        .  372 


MAPS. 

TO  PACE  PAGE 

NORTHERN  AND  CENTRAL  FRANCE 1 

ORLEANS  AND  VICINITY 78 

COMPIEGNE  AND  VICINITY 206 


ABBREVIATIONS. 

P.  =  Proces  de  condamnation  et  de  rehabilitation  de  Jeanne  d'Arc, 
par  Jules  Quicherat.  As  P.  vi.  I  have  cited  "  Mdmoires  &  consulta- 
tions en  faveur  de  Jeanne  d'Arc,  publics  pour  la  premiere  fois,  par 
Pierre  Lan^ry  d'Arc."  Volume  i.  of  M.  Quicherat's  work  contains 
the  report  of  Joan's  trial  ;  volumes  ii.  and  iii.  the  report  of  her 
second  trial  or  rehabilitation,  with  the  evidence  given  therein  ;  vol- 
umes iv.  and  v.  contain  all  the  other  historical  evidence,  approxi- 
mately contemporary,  which  he  was  able  to  gather  concerning  her, 
such  as  letters,  documents,  accounts,  extracts  from  the  chronicles,  etc. 
In  many  cases,  I  have  added  to  my  citation  of  the  volume  and  page  of 
M.  Quicherat's  work  the  name  of  his  authority.  In  volumes  ii.  and 
iii.  the  name  is  that  of  a  witness  testifying  at  Joan's  rehabilitation  ; 
in  volumes  iv.  and  v.  that  of  a  chronicler  or  other  writer. 

Luce  =  Jeanne  d'Arc  a  Domremy,  par  Sime'on  Luce,  Paris,  1886, 
in  octavo. 

Beaucourt  =  Histoire  de  Charles  VII.,  par  G.  du  Fresne  de  Beau- 
court. 


,N  IVE  RNAIS 

BurTevrehLaCharite 


JOAN  OF  ARC. 


CHAPTER   I. 
THE  CONDITION    OF   FRANCE. 

THE  personality  of  Joan  of  Arc  was  so  strong  that  her 
life  takes  its  chief  interest  therefrom  rather  than  from 
her  surroundings.  But  no  man  can  exist  apart  from  his 
circumstances;  these  must,  in  any  case,  be  the  field  of 
his  effort,  and,  in  great  measure,  must  determine  the 
means  which  he  uses,  and  the  end  which  he  proposes  to 
reach.  To  study  the  life  of  Joan  of  Arc  apart  from  the 
life  of  her  people  and  her  generation  is  no  less  absurd 
than  to  regard  her  as  their  type. 

Before  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  France  was 
hardly  a  nation.  Without  a  common  language,  and  with 
a  boundary  shifting  and  ill-defined,  almost  its  only  bond 
of  union  was  its  king,  and  in  much  of  France  the  king 
was  little  more  than  a  name.  In  one  province  he  was  a 
great  feudal  lord  with  strong  castles  and  great  posses- 
sions. In  the  next  province  the  real  power  was  that  of 
some  duke  or  count,  who  kept  royal  state,  assembled  the 
provincial  representatives  and  treated  with  them,  carried 
on  war  against  the  king,  or  neglected  him  altogether. 
Still  another  province  was  under  English  rule.  In  the 
same  province,  indeed,  the  conditions  changed  from  time 
to  time.  Sometimes  the  royal  domain  was  granted  away, 
sometimes  great  feudal  appanages  reverted  to  the  crown. 
Normandy  was  won  from  the  English,  Poitou  was  lost 
to  them. 


2  JOAN   OP   ARC. 

The  cities,  then  large  and  numerous  throughout  France, 
were  usually  almost  independent  of  the  great  lords,  and 
even  the  royal  power  was  often  inferior  to  that  of  their 
local  government.  The  town  councils,  chosen  by  the 
guilds,  or  by  the  more  prosperous  citizens  at  large,  shut 
the  gates  against  the  rude  soldiers  of  both  king  and  lord, 
maintained  agents  at  their  courts,  and  considered  what 
contribution  should  be  made  to  the  needs  of  one  or  the 
other.  Originally  the  municipal  charters  had  been  granted 
to  offset  the  power  of  the  nobles,  and  still  the  cities  served 
this  purpose,  but  if  they  kept  the  nobles  in  check,  they 
checked  also  the  growth  of  national  feeling  by  substitut- 
ing for  it  a  strong  local  pride. 

Thus  France,  a  country  many  times  as  populous  and  as 
rich  as  England,  was  overrun  by  English  armies.  Then, 
as  in  later  times,  the  insular  position  of  England  counted 
for  much  in  the  wars  it  carried  on,  but  it  had  an  advan- 
tage quite  as  great  in  its  fuller  national  development. 
To  speak  of  England  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  cen- 
turies as  a  centralized  state  seems  absurd  to  us  to-day, 
but,  compared  to  France,  it  was  centralized  indeed.  Its 
nobles  were  powerful,  but  not,  like  the  dukes  of  Bur- 
gundy and  Brittany,  princes  really  independent.  Its 
towns,  except  London,  were  of  small  importance  com- 
pared to  the  great  cities  of  France,  and  had  less  local 
independence.  Its  language  had  many  dialects  spoken 
by  the  common  people,  but  the  students  at  its  universi- 
ties, unlike  those  of  Paris  and  Toulouse,  could  under- 
stand each  other  without  recourse  to  Latin. 

Most  of  the  country  won  by  Edward  III.  and  by  the 
Black  Prince  was  recovered  for  France  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  V.  (1364-1380)  by  the  skill  and  valor  of  Dugues- 
clin  and  Clisson ; 1  Calais  in  the  north  and  Bordeaux  in 
the  south,  with  the  country  about  them,  alone  remained  to 
England.  Charles  V.  did  much  more  than  win  back 
1  See  Labroue,  Bergerac  sous  les  Anglais,  in  12mo,  p.  59. 


THE   CONDITION   OF   FRANCE.  6 

lost  territory.  With  some  success,  he  attempted  to  or- 
ganize the  administration  of  France,  to  regulate  its 
finances,  and  to  secure  justice  for  all.  In  the  century 
and  a  half  which  separated  Philip  the  Fair  from  Louis 
XI.,  he  was  the  only  man  of  ability  to  sit  on  the  throne, 
and  his  early  death  was  a  calamity  to  the  kingdom. 

Charles  VI.  was  twelve  years  old  when  his  father  died. 
During  his  minority  the  country  was  shame- 
lessly plundered  by  his  uncles,  who  overthrew 
the  system  which  their  brother  had  tried  to  establish. 
On  coming  of  age,  the  young  king  recalled  some  of  his 
father's  old  servants,  but  their  rule  was  short.  Weak  in 
body  and  mind,  four  years  of  wild  debauchery  made 
Charles  VI.  a  madman,  sometimes  raving,  sometimes 
idiotic,  sometimes  with  just  enough  intelligence  to  move 
the  pity  of  those  who  saw  him.  His  uncles  and  the  other 
great  nobles  at  once  regained  power,  and  preyed  again 
upon  the  distracted  country. 

After  some  years  their  promiscuous  quarrels  were  re- 
solved into  a  struggle  between  the  two  strongest.  Louis, 
duke  of  Orleans,  the  king's  younger  brother,  willful  and 
licentious,  but  handsome  and  brilliant,  with  manners  so 
winning  that  those  who  had  served  him  never  forgot 
their  master,  was  opposed  to  Philip,  duke  of  Burgundy, 
the  king's  youngest  uncle,  and  to  Philip's  son  and  suc- 
cessor, John,  surnamed  the  Fearless.1  The  country 
owned  by  the  dukes  of  Burgundy  was  rich  and  populous ; 
they  ruled  the  trading  cities  of  Flanders  to  the  north  of 
France,  and  both  the  duchy  and  county  of  Burgundy  to 
the  east.  Though  they  were  quite  as  greedy  as  the  duke 
of  Orleans  or  as  any  other  great  noble,  both  Philip  and 
John  were  clever  enough  to  protest  in  the  name  of  the 
people  against  some  oppressive  taxes,  the  proceeds  of 
which  they  were  not  able  to  share.  In  this  way,  they 

1  Philip  the  Bold  of  Burgundy  died  in  1404.  .John  the  Fearless 
and  Louis  of  Orleans  were  both  born  in  1371. 


4  JOAN   OP   ARC. 

came  to  represent  the  general  discontent  of  the  people, 
and  grew  especially  popular  with  the  ferocious  mob  of 
Paris. 

From  time  to  time  a  sham  peace  was  made  between 
the  rivals.     One   Sunday  in   November,    1407, 

1407. 

Louis  and  John  together  partook  of  the  Eucha- 
rist, having  first  sworn  love  and  good  fellowship.1  On 
the  following  Wednesday,  the  bravos  of  Duke  John  way- 
laid and  murdered  Duke  Louis  in  the  streets  of  Paris. 
Such  was  the  temper  of  France,  that  the  principal  men 
of  the  kingdom  assembled  soon  afterwards  with  the  duke 
of  Burgundy  to  hear  a  panegyric  on  the  murder  delivered 
by  a  priest  whom  John  had  hired  for  the  occasion. 

Louis  of  Orleans  left  faithful  servants  who,  in  the 
name  of  his  young  sons,  prepared  to  avenge  his  death. 
For  several  years  the  tide  of  civil  war  ebbed  and  flowed 
through  northern  France  and  about  the  walls  of  Paris. 
Now  and  then  peace  was  made,  to  be  broken  as  one  party 
or  the  other  made  fresh  combinations  with  great  nobles 
and  princes  of  the  blood.  When  hardest  pressed,  both 
sides  in  turn  called  the  English  to  their  help,  a  danger- 
ous proceeding,  as  the  English  king  had  never  abandoned 
his  claim  to  be  king  of  France.  At  first  the  Orleanists 
suffered  for  want  of  a  leader,  but,  in  1410, 
Charles,  the  young  duke  of  Orleans,  was 'mar- 
ried to  Bonne,  daughter  of  Bernard,  count  of  Armagnac ; 
and  thereafter  the  count  led  the  opposition  to  John  the 
Fearless,  giving  the  name  of  Armagnacs  to  the  Orleanist 
partisans.  He  was  a  rude  nobleman  of  Gascony,  with 
hot  southern  blood  in  his  veins,  quite  as  selfish  as  the 
duke  of  Burgundy  and,  if  possible,  even  more  violent. 
Availing  himself  of  a  reaction  against  the  excesses  of  the 
Parisian  mob,  he  seized  the  capital  and  the  person  of  the 
king,  and  drove  John  back  to  his  estates. 

The  troubles  in  England  during  the  reigns  of  Richard 
1  See  Juvenal  des  Ursins,  Histoire  de  Charles  VI.,  ed.  1614,  p.  235. 


THE   CONDITION   OF   FRANCE.  5 

II.  and  Henry  IV.  (1377-1413)  prevented  an  invasion  of 
France.  Henry  V.,  able  and  popular,  in  the  struggle 
between  Armagnaes  and  Burgundians  found  his  chance 
to  assert  what  he  believed  to  be  his  right  to  the  throne, 
and  in  1415  entered  Normandy.  The  govern- 
ment of  France  was  in  the  hands  of  Armagnac. 
John  the  Fearless  had  no  wish  that  his  rival  should  win 
a  victory;  therefore  he  intrigued  with  Henry,  and  dis- 
suaded his  followers  from  joining  the  French  army. 
After  needless  delay  and  with  much  blundering,  an  enor- 
mous body  of  the  French  nobility  stumbled  helplessly 
against  the  well-disciplined  English  troops  at  Agincourt, 
and  was  cut  to  pieces  on  the  spot.  The  greatest  and 
the  bravest  of  the  French  nobles  were  killed  or  carried 
to  England  as  prisoners.  Terrible  as  was  the  disaster, 
some  Frenchmen  rejoiced  at  it.1 

The  English  did  not  push  their  success  until  more  than 
a  year  had  passed;  not  until  1417  did  Henry  undertake 
the  conquest  of  France  in  earnest.  Armagnac  had  kept 
his  control  of  the  king,  and  the  furious  rivalry  between 
himself  and  Burgundy  paralyzed  the  nation;  only  the 
local  pride  of  some  city  here  and  there  enabled  it  to 
make  a  brave  resistance.  As  Henry  marched  in  triumph 
through  the  land,  the  people  naturally  blamed  Armagnac 
rather  than  Duke  John,  and  at  last  they  would  bear  the 
count's  rule  no  longer.  The  gates  of  Paris 

.  1418. 

were  opened  by  treachery,  the  Burgundian  par- 
tisans burst  into  the  city,  seized  the  person  of  the  king, 
and  massacred  every  Armagnac  they  could  find,  includ- 
ing the  count  himself;  only  the  Dauphin  Charles,  the 
king's  last  surviving  son,  a  boy  of  fifteen,  was  snatched 
from  his  bed  by  one  of  the  Armagnac  captains,  and  car- 
ried off  into  central  France.2 

These  two  acts,  the  capture  of  the  king  by  John  the 

1  See  Martin,  Hist.  France,  vi.  22. 

2  See  Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  ann.  1418. 


O  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

Fearless,  and  the  abduction  of  the  dauphin  by  the 
Armagnacs,  made  more  definite  the  line  of  separation 
between  the  two  parties.  Both  the  crazy  man  and  the 
weak  boy  were  mere  tools  in  the  hands  of  their  masters, 
but  each  represented  certain  great  classes  in  the  nation, 
both  social  and  geographical.  With  the  duke  of  Bur- 
gundy was  the  semblance  of  royalty,  not  only  the  king, 
but  the  vain  and  licentious  queen,  whose  petty  mind  was 
now  filled  with  hatred  of  her  son.  On  the  duke's  side, 
also,  was  the  mob  of  Paris,  and  the  turbulent  democracy 
of  the  cities  of  northern  France;  with  him  were  the 
nobles  of  Burgundy,  of  Picardy,  and  of  Flanders,  and 
some  enemies  of  Armagnac  in  the  south.  With  the 
Armagnacs  was  that  feeling  of  hopeful  and  future  loyalty 
which  clings  to  the  heir  of  the  throne ;  with  them,  also, 
were  the  men  of  central  France,  both  nobles  and  common 
people,  some  of  the  southern  nobles,  most  of  the  southern 
cities  not  in  the  power  of  the  English,  and  not  a  few  of 
the  most  respectable  burghers  in  the  north.  More  im- 
portant than  all,  the  larger  and  better  part  of  the  civil 
servants  of  the  crown,  judges,  clerks,  secretaries,  and  the 
like,  sided  with  the  Dauphin  for  fear  of  the  arrogance  of 
Duke  John  and  the  violence  of  the  mob  of  Paris.  At 
the  moment,  these  men  were  overborne  by  the  .fierce 
Armagnac  captains,  the  vindictive  servants  of  Louis  of 
Orleans,  and  the  treacherous  courtiers  who  made  a  play- 
thing of  the  wretched  Dauphin,  but  their  power  slowly 
increased,  and  at  last  they  founded  modern  France.1 

On  both  sides  the  leaders  had  lost  all  patriotism. 
Both  the  duke  and  the  Armagnacs  tried  to  buy  the  help 
of  Henry  by  the  offer  of  the  best  provinces  of  France ; 
though  willing  to  negotiate  with  both,  Henry  would 
make  no.  agreement  with  either,  but  marched  steadily 
onward.  As  city  after  city  fell  into  his  hands,  signs  of 

1  See  Juve'nal  des  Ursins,  455  ;  also  Pe'chenard,  Jean  Juvenal,  77 
et  seq. 


THE   CONDITION   OF   FRANCE.  7 

real  patriotism  appeared  among  the  people  at  large,  and 
forced  both  John  and  the  Armagnacs  to  pretend  to  wish 
for  reconciliation. 

After  some  negotiation,  the  duke  met  the  Dauphin  on 
the  bridge  over  the  Yonne  at  Montereau,  some 
fifty  miles  southeast  of  Paris.  Every  precau- 
tion had  been  taken  against  treachery,  stout  palisades 
had  been  put  up,  and  but  ten  men  on  each  side  were 
admitted  to  the  conference.  All  was  in  vain.  An  old 
servant  of  Louis  of  Orleans,  taking  advantage  of  the 
duke's  arrogant  words  and  bearing,  split  open  his  head 
with  an  axe.  This  was  no  chance  outburst  of  fury:  the 
plot  had  been  laid  for  months,  and  included  some  of  the 
duke's  retinue.1 

The  murder  of  John  the  Fearless  had  its  natural  con- 
sequences. Philip,  surnamed  the  Good,  his  son  and 
successor,  a  capable  and  ambitious  young  man  of  twenty- 
three,  at  once  offered  to  Henry  terms  so  favorable  that  the 
English  king  accepted  them.  In  1420  a  treaty 
was  signed  at  Troyes,  whereby  Henry,  married 
to  the  daughter  of  Charles  VI.,  was  declared  the  heir  of 
the  crazy  king  and  regent  of  France.  By  this  act,  forced 
upon  Charles  VI.,  Duke  Philip  hoped  to  glut  his  ven- 
geance for  the  murder  of  Montereau.  Paris  was  deliv- 
ered to  the  English,  and  the  allied  English  and  Burgun- 
dian  armies  together  proceeded  to  the  conquest  of  the 
rest  of 'France. 

At  first  the  Armagnac  leaders  showed  some  energy. 
They  took  the  Dauphin  into  Languedoc,  and  by  exhibiting 
him  to  the  people  won  many  to  his  support.  They  were, 

1  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  651.  M.  de  Beaucourt  doubts  the  authenticity 
of  the  document  he  publishes,  and  asks  how  an  exoneration  of 
Robert  le  Mac.on  could  have  come  into  the  hands  of  La  Trdmoille. 
It  was  made  out  July  2,  1426,  and  in  August  La  Tre'moille  violently 
seized  Le  Mason's  person.  May  he  not  have  taken  it  from  him  ? 
The  want  of  the  king's  signature  proves  nothing  ;  it  was  often 
omitted. 


8  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

however,  utterly  incapable  of  governing  the  country ;  not 
satisfied  with  their  exploit  at  Montereau,  they  tried  in 
like  manner  to  rid  themselves  of  the  duke  of  Brittany, 
a  powerful  prince,  almost  independent,  whose  alliance 
they  might  have  won  by  fair  dealing.  The  duke  escaped, 
and,  after  a  time,  naturally  followed  Philip  of  Burgundy 
into  the  English  camp.1  In  spite  of  one  or  two  checks, 
Henry  seemed  on  the  point  of  conquering 
France,  when  he  died  suddenly,  in  the  flower  of 
his  manhood.  Charles  VI.  outlived  him  but  a  few  weeks. 

Henry  VI.  of  England,  by  the  treaty  of  Troyes  king 
of  France,2  a  baby  nine  months  old,  was  now  the  head  of 
the  Anglo-Burgundian  alliance.  His  uncle,  John,  duke 
of  Bedford,  was  his  regent  in  France,  a  man  shrewd, 
determined,  patient,  and  temperate.  The  task  of  Bedford 
was  harder  than  his  brother's  had  been,  for,  after  the 
treaty  of  Troyes,  Henry  V.  had  ruled  in  the  name  of 
Charles  VI.,  whose  right  to  the  throne  was  undoubted, 
while  Bedford  must  act  for  a  foreigner,  and  against  the 
natural  head  of  the  royal  family. 

In  spite  of  this  advantage,  the  affairs  of  Charles  VII., 
as  he  was  now  called,  went  from  bad  to  worse. 
He  was  about  twenty  years  old,  and  his  disposi- 
tion began  to  manifest  itself.  Son  of  a  vain  and  licen- 
tious mother,  born  when  his  father  had  been  ten  years  a 
madman,  the  boy  grew  up  among  the  dissolute  brawlers 
at  court.  Throughout  life  he  was  what  his  parentage 
and  his  education  naturally  made  him,  weak  in  body  and 
mind,  now  luxurious  and  fond  of  display,  now  melancholy 
and  sullen,  "drenching  his  passions  with  drunkenness 

1  The  plot  against  the  duke  of  Brittany  was  made  in  1420,  and  he 
did  not  join  the  English  until  1423.     The  conduct  of  the  Armagnac 
leaders,  however,  always  rankled  in  him.     See  Cosneau,  Connetable 
de  Richemont,  60,  74. 

2  Of  course  lie  was  not  Henry  VI.  of  France,  but  properly  Henry 
II.     In  accordance  with  the   custom  of  the  time,  he  was  usually 
styled  simply  Henry. 


THE   CONDITION   OF   FRANCE.  9 

and  debauchery,  stupid  with  self-indulgence  and  slothful- 
ness,"  as  said  a  contemporary  historian  by  no  means 
unfriendly.1  He  was  a  coward  ;  in  his  boyhood  he 
had  been  dragged  into  the  field  by  the  fierce  men  about 
him,  whose  bravery  was  their  only  virtue,  but,  as  soon 
as  he  could  make  his  wishes  respected,  he  withdrew  into 
safe  castles,  where  he  spent  most  of  his  life.  Plainly, 
France  could  expect  nothing  from  him.  From  the  leaders 
of  the  Armagnacs  she  could  expect  little  more.  Most 
of  them  were  adventurers,  whose  only  object  was  to  get 
land  and  money.  They  caused  the  king  to  grant  to  them 
the  royal  domain,  they  pillaged  the  treasury,  and  stole 
the  money  intended  for  the  army.2  The  boldest  of  them 
carried  on  a  guerrilla  warfare  against  the  English,  and  in 
so  doing  mercilessly  plundered,  tortured,  and  killed  the 
wretched  peasantry.  In  the  two  years  which  followed 
his  accession,  Charles  lost  several  provinces. 

The  English  success  aroused  the  patriotism  of  the  com- 
mon people  and  the  jealousy  of  the  great  nobles,  even  of 
those  who  up  to  this  time  had  sided  with  Burgundy  and 
the  English.  An  opportune  quarrel  between  one  of  Bed- 
ford's brothers  and  Philip  greatly  irritated  the  duke  with 
his  allies.  While  he  did  not  break  with  them  for  more 
than  ten  years  to  come,  he  looked  with  increasing  dread 
upon  English  success,  grew  to  believe  that  it  was  possible 
to  be  reconciled  to  Charles,  and  intrigued  to  gain  power 
at  his  court.  From  this  time  forward  he  kept  faith  with 
neither  party. 

All  these  causes  weakened  the  power  which  the  old 
leaders  of  the  Armagnacs  had  hitherto  kept.  Even  at 
court  they  were  not  unopposed.  Yolande  of  Aragon, 
duchess  dowager  of  Anjou,  the  king's  mother-in-law,  and 
a  woman  of  real  ability,  knew  well  that  it  was  vain  to 

1  Basin,  Hist.  Charles  VII.,  i.  54,  116.     See  Appendix  A. 

2  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  69  ;  Vallet  de  Viriville,  Charles    VII.,  i.  162  ; 
Tuetey,  Ecorcheurs  sous  Charles  VII.,  ii.  449. 


10  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

fight  with  the  English,  unless  aided  by  the  great  feudal 
lords,  and  that  these  would  never  submit  to  be  governed 
by  political  adventurers  and  captains  of  banditti.  With 
Yolande  were  the  civil  servants,  as  we  should  call  them, 
the  permanent  officials;  with  her,  also,  were  the  repre- 
sentative assemblies,  both  of  the  kingdom  and  of  the 
provinces,  who  knew  how  terrible  was  the  corruption  and 
disorder  everywhere.1  By  vigorous  diplomacy  the  old 
favorites  were  frightened  and  outwitted,  and  the  feeble 
king  was  handed  over  to  the  control  of  Arthur, 
count  of  Richemont,2  brother  of  the  duke  of 
Brittany  and  brother-in-law  of  Philip  of  Burgundy. 

The  character  of  Richemont,  thus  made  constable  of 
France,  was  not  immaculate.  Already  he  had  changed 
sides  more  than  once.  Ambitious  and  overbearing,  he 
would  tolerate  no  rival  at  court,  while  his  greed  was  only 
less  than  that  of  his  predecessors.3  He  had,  however,  a 
real  sense  of  responsibility,  and  he  addressed  himself 
seriously  to  the  task  of  beating  back  the  English.  His 
influence  secured  the  support  of  Brittany,  while  Philip 
was  induced  to  grant  a  truce  covering  a  large  part  of  the 
eastern  frontier  of  France.4 

Some  of  the  old  favorites  still  lingered  at  court  and 

1  See  Pe"chenard,  Jean  Juvenal,  82,  198. 

2  The  real  title  of  Arthur  of  Brittany  was  Earl  of   Richmond  in 
Yorkshire,  a  title  conferred  at  sundry  times  on  various  members  of 
the  ducal  house  of  Brittany.     See  Doyle,  Official  Baronage,  iii.  116. 
At  this  time  Arthur's  right  to  the  title  probably  was  not  acknow- 
ledged in  England.     The  gallicized  word  "  Richemont  "   is  always 
used  by  French  historians. 

8  For  Richemont,  see  Cosneau,  Connetable  de  Richemont,  and  a 
review  of  the  book,  Bibl.  Ecole  des  Chartes,  xlix.  261.  He  revoked 
the  grants  made  to  former  favorites.  Beaucourt,  ii.  122. 

4  In  1426  Richemont  told  Philip  that  he  had  driven  from  Charles's 
court  all  persons  disagreeable  to  the  duke.  Philip  ought,  therefore, 
to  act  fairly  by  the  royal  cause.  Under  no  circumstances  would 
Richemont  allow  the  English  to  triumph.  The  letter  is,  on  the  whole, 
that  of  a  forceful  and  sensible  man.  Beaucourt,  ii.  375;  Plancher, 
Hist.  Bourgogne,  iv.,  Ixii. 


THE   CONDITION   OF  FRANCE.  11 

easily  gained  the  ear  of  the  weak  king,  who  never  liked 
the  manners  of  the  constable.  They  hindered  the  nego- 
tiations with  Philip,  and  were  supposed  to  hamper  the 
constable's  operations  in  the  field.  Richemont  did  not 
stick  at  trifles.  One  favorite  he  dragged  from  court  and 
drowned  in  the  river,  another  he  slaughtered  almost  be- 
fore the  eyes  of  Charles.  But  the  third  favorite,  George 
of  La  Tremoille,1  a  nobleman  of  some  importance,  proved 
too  strong  for  the  fierce  Breton,  and  gained  firm  control 
of  the  wretched  king  and  of  the  miserable  remnant  of 
France  still  left  to  Charles.  The  duke  of  Brittany  went 
back  to  the  English  alliance  in  high  dudgeon,  while  La 
Tremoille  spent  the  royal  treasure  in  carrying  on  a  pri- 
vate war  with  the  constable,  who  remained  nominally 
loyal.2 

In  1428  France  was  come  to  this  condition.  Nor- 
mandy, Paris  and  the  country  about  it,  Perche, 
Alen<;on,  most  of  Maine  and  Champagne,  were 
in  the  hands  of  the  English.  Brittany  was  ruled  by  an 
independent  prince,  their  somewhat  reluctant  ally.  Pi- 
cardy  and  Flanders  on  the  north,  the  duchy  and  county 
of  Burgundy  on  the  east,  belonged  to  Philip  the  Good, 
a  man  jealous  of  English  success,  but  still  anxious  to 
avenge  his  father's  murder,  and  irritated  by  the  disgrace 
of  Richemont,  his  brother-in-law,  though  willing  to  in- 
trigue with  La  Tremoille.  The  duke  of  Lorraine  had 
been  cajoled  and  bullied  into  acknowledging  Henry  VI. ; 
even  his  heir,  Rene  of  Anjou,  Charles's  brother-in-law, 
yielded  at  last.  Speaking  generally,  nearly  all  France 
north  of  the  Loire,  and  all  the  country  east  of  that  river, 
as  far  south  as  Lyons,  denied  the  right  of  Charles.3 

1  For  La  Tremoille,  see  Beaucourt,  ii.  144,  128.     He  was  born 
1385. 

2  See  Quicherat,  Rodrigo  de  Villandrando,  30 ;  Loiseleur,  Compte 
des  depenses  faites  par  Charles  VII.,  61,  62. 

3  Longnon,  Rev.  Quest.  Hist.,  October,  1875,  444  ;  and  see  the  map 
published  in  Wallon,  Jeanne  d'Arc,  e"d.  illust.,  412. 


12  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

This  was  not  all.  Bordeaux  had  been  in  English  hands 
two  centuries  and  a  half,  and  no  city  in  England  was 
more  loyal  to  Henry.  Much  of  the  surrounding  country 
was  English,  while  the  rest  of  southwestern  France  was 
ruled  by  nobles  whom  neither  party  could  trust.  In  the 
southeast,  Provence  was  practically  an  independent  state. 

The  remainder  of  France,  the  country  south  of  the 
Loire  between  the  Garonne  and  the  Rhone,  together  with 
Dauphiny,  acknowledged  Charles  VII.  At  a  safe  dis- 
tance from  the  enemy,  in  some  strong  castle,  the  king 
passed  his  time  in  idleness,  in  debauchery,  and  in  melan- 
choly brooding  over  his  troubles.  His  master,  La  Tre- 
moille,  plundered  France,  betrayed  it  to  Burgundy,  and 
dealt  privately  with  the  English  to  save  his  own  posses- 
sions from  attack.1  Leagued  with  him  were  other  cour- 
tiers, who  in  humbler  degree  imitated  his  greed  and  his 
treachery.  The  great  nobles  stood  aloof.  Here  and 
there  some  general  in  the  field  tried  to  do  his  duty 
against  the  English  without  money  and  without  men. 
Most  of  the  captains,  however,  even  when  faithful  to 
Charles,  were  by  habit  unspeakable  ruffians,  far  more 
terrible  to  the  wretched  people  than  to  their  own  enemies, 
and  as  ready  to  hire  out  for  private  warfare  as  to  take 
the  field  against  the  English.  More  than  once  the  king 
was  compelled  to  ransom  his  servants  from  the  hands  of 
his  own  soldiers.2 

In  the  cities  was  constant  terror.  Seldom  would  the 
burghers  open  their  gates  to  admit  even  friendly  soldiers. 
Nearly  every  city  in  northern  France  had  been  besieged, 
some  of  them  many  times,  and  many  of  them  had  been 
sacked  by  Armagnacs,  Burgundians,  or  English.  Yet  in 
the  cities  alone  was  there  a  hope  of  safety.  The  open 
country  became  a  desert,  briars  choked  up  what  once 
were  fertile  fields,  and  the  peasants  starved  or  were  tor- 

1  See  Les  La  Tremoille  pendant  cinq  siedes,  171  et  seq. 

2  See  Quicherat,  Rodrigo  de  Villandrando,  30. 


THE   CONDITION    OF   FRANCE.  13 

tured  to  death  by  the  French  banditti,  or  rose  in  blind 
revolt  and  were  slaughtered  by  English  troops.1  Out 
of  this  stress  came  at  last  French  patriotism  and  the  cen- 
tralized power  of  the  French  king;  but,  at  the  moment 
when  both  patriotism  and  king  seemed  weakest,  the  Eng- 
lish sent  a  strong  army  under  their  best  captains  to  force 
the  barrier  of  the  Loire  and  end  the  struggle.  With  this 
intent  they  laid  siege  to  Orleans. 

1  See  Basin,  i.  32,  45;  Jean  Chartier,  i.  175;  Cosneau,  236,  241; 
Journal  d'un  Bourgeois  de  Paris,  ann.  1419  ;  Tuetey,  Ecorcheurs  sous 
Charles  VII.  All  contemporary  accounts  of  France  speak  of  the 
utter  misery  of  the  country,  especially  the  open  country.  In  1444  a 
truce  was  made  with  the  English,  and  the  peasants  went  wild  with 
delight.  Basin,  i.  161. 


CHAPTER  II. 
DOMBEHT. 

THE  village  of  Domremy  lies  in  the  valley  of  the 
Meuse,  where  the  Vair  enters  the  larger  stream.  Through 
rich,  green  meadows,  about  a  mile  wide,  the  sluggish 
wateis  of  the  river  flow  in  many  small  channels,  which 
change  their  course  at  flood -time  from  year  to  year.  Be- 
hind the  meadows,  east  and  west,  rise  low,  gentle  hills, 
two  or  three  hundred  feet  high,  so  flat  at  the  top  that 
they  seem  to  mark  the  original  level  of  the  land,  through 
which  the  river  and  its  tributaries  have  forced  their  way. 
Just  at  the  foot  of  this  low,  sloping  wall  of  hills,  on  the 
very  edge  of  the  meadows,  lies  the  little  village,  made 
up  to-day  of  forty  or  fifty  houses,  as  it  was  four  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  ago.  Never  important  enough  to  be 
walled,  it  straggles  along  the  great  highroad  from  Langres 
to  Verdun,1  and  along  a  narrow,  crooked,  irregular  lane 
behind  it. 

In  1412  the  slopes  of  the  hills  and  the  flat  land  at  their 
top  were  well  covered  with  woods.  Above  each  little  vil- 
lage on  the  banks  of  the  Meuse,  above  Domremy,  Maxey, 
Greux,  Burey,  and  the  rest,  stretched  the  forest  which 
still  keeps  the  name  of  the  village  whose  inhabitants  it 
supplied  with  firing  four  or  five  centuries  ago. 

The  peasants  of  Domremy  raised  crops  of  corn,  and 
there  was  a  vineyard  near  by;  each  family  kept  fowls 
and  bees,  but  their  principal  wealth  was  in  their  cattle. 
These  fed  together  on  the  rich  pastures  of  the  river-bot- 
tom, and  were  tended  in  turn  by  the  children  of  the  vil- 
1  Luce,  J.  a  Domremy,  xx. 


DOMEEMY.  15 

lage.  Such  is  the  custom  to-day.  The  houses  were  of 
stone  with  thatched  or  tiled  roofs;  they  were  small,  of 
one  or  two  or  three  rooms,  and  sometimes  there  was  a 
low  garret  overhead.  The  furniture  was  simple :  a  few 
stools  and  benches,  a  table  or  a  pair  of  trestles  with  a 
board  to  cover  them,  a  few  pots  and  pans  of  copper,  and 
some  pewter  dishes.  The  housewife  had  in  her  chest 
two  or  three  sheets  for  her  feather-bed,  two  or  three  ker- 
chiefs, a  cloak,  a  piece  of  cloth  ready  to  be  made  into 
whatever  garment  was  most  needed,  and  a  few  buttons 
and  pins.  Often  there  was  a  sword  in  the  corner,  or  a 
spear  or  an  arblast,  but  the  peasants  were  peaceful, 'sel- 
dom waged  war,  and  often  were  unable  even  to  resist 
attack.1 

Under  the  feudal  system,  every  foot  of  land  had  many 
owners,  each  holding  it  of  a  superior  lord,  until  the  sov- 
ereign himself  was  reached.  The  peasants  of  Domremy 
were  vassals  of  the  noble  family  of  Bourlemont,  whose 
castle,  some  four  miles  to  the  south,  still  stands  on  a 
wooded  headland  which  juts  out  into  the  flat  meadows  of 
the  Meuse.  To  the  same  family  belonged  the  larger  vil- 
lage of  Greux,  half  a  mile  north  of  Domremy,  forming 
with  it  but  one  parish.2 

The  lords  of  Bourlemont  held  their  lands  of  more  than 
one  overlord.  Their  castle  they  held  directly  of  the  king 
of  France ;  not  so  Domremy.  It  is  probable  that  nearly 
the  whole  of  this  village  lay  south  of  an  insignificant 
rivulet  which  separated  Greux,  a  possession  of  the  bishop 
of  Toul,  from  the  duchy  of  Bar.  The  duke  of  Bar  was 
thus  the  overlord  of  Domremy,  but  for  this  part  of  his 
duchy*he,  in  turn,  owed  allegiance  to  the  king  of  France. 

The  position  of  this  rivulet  and  the  precise  feudal  rela- 

1  See  Luce,  xliv.,  liii.  262,  and   the  claims   for   damages   in   the 
depositions  printed  by  Tnetey,  Ecorcheurs  sous  Charles  VI I. 

2  P.  i.  46,  J.'s  test.    See  Lepage, «/.  est-elle  Lorraine  ?  2de  dissert., 
301. 


16  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

tion  of  Domremy  have  been  the  subject  of  endless  contro- 
versy. Its  lord  lived  in  France,  its  bishop  was  a  prince 
of  the  Empire,  the  provost  was  an  officer  of  the  duke  of 
Bar,  while  the  bailiwick,  in  which  it  was  included,  in- 
cluded also  territory  more  directly  dependent  upon  the 
French  crown.  From  year  to  year,  moreover,  king  and 
duke,  bishop  and  bailiff,  tried  to  extend  their  several 
jurisdictions,  and  so  time  increased  the  natural  confusion 
of  the  feudal  system.  It  is  quite  clear,  however,  that 
the  peasants  did  not  care  whether  they  were  separated 
from  the  king  of  France  by  one  or  more  intermediate 
vassals.  Their  speech  was  French;  their  sympathies 
looked  west  rather  than  east;  even  in  Lorraine,  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Meuse,  the  feeling  for  France  was  warm, 
though  the  duchy  of  Lorraine  was  no  part  of  the  king- 
dom, but  belonged  to  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.1 

1  The  people  of  Maxey  sur  Meuse,  less  than  a  mile  from  Dom- 
remy, seem  to  have  favored  the  Burgundians  ;  but  see  p.  26,  infra. 

The  controversy  concerning  the  precise  political  relations  of  Dom- 
remy has  produced  an  immense  number  of  pamphlets,  some  of  them 
written  very  intemperately.  For  instance,  one  writer  has  intimated 
that  those  who  deny  that  Joan  was  born  in  Champagne  are  guilty 
of  blasphemy.  Georges,  Jeanne  d?  Arc  consideree  au  point  de  vue 
franco  -  champenois,  532.  In  fact,  so  great  was  the  confusion  in 
the  political  geography  of  the  valley  of  the  Meuse,  that  the  same 
man  might,  not  unreasonably,  call  himself  a  Frenchman,  a  resident 
in  the  duchy  of  Lorraine,  in  the  duchy  of  Bar,  in  the  province  of 
Champagne,  and  in  the  bishopric  of  Toul,  all  at  once.  Under  these 
circumstances,  to  seek  to  determine  the  political  relations  of  Dom- 
remy by  the  casual  expressions  of  people  living  in  the  neighborhood 
is  absurd.  No  evidence  except  that  of  title-deeds  and  of  the  like 
formal  documents  is  worth  considering.  Unfortunately,  the  search 
for  such  evidence,  though  extensive,  has  not  been  quite  thorough, 
and  some  minor  questions  have  not  yet  been  settled  beyond  possibility 
of  doubt.  In  the  light  of  the  evidence  thus  far  collected  the  matter 
stands  somewhat  as  follows  :  — 

In  the  thirteenth  century  much  the  larger  part,  perhaps  the  whole, 
of  Domremy  belonged  to  the  duchy  of  Bar,  while  Greux  and  perhaps 
a  small  part  of  Domremy  belonged  to  the  temporalities  of  the  bishop- 


DOMEEMY.  17 

The  relation  of  the  men  of  Domremy  to  the  house  of 
Bourlemont  was  friendly.  Their  dues  were  heavy,  it  is 

ric  of  Toul.  The  line  which  divided  the  duchy  from  the  bishopric 
followed  the  course  of  a  small  brook,  called  the  Three  Fountains 
Brook,  which  then  entered  the  Meuse  at  the  northern  end  of  the 
village  of  Domremy,  but  which,  in  the  last  century,  was  deflected 
considerably  to  the  southward.  Chapellier,  Etude  hist,  et  geog.  sur 
Domremy  •  Ib.,  Etude  sur  la  veritable  nationalite  de  J.;  Luce,  281, 282, 
284  ;  De  Pange,  Patriotisme  franpais  en  Lorraine,  21,  53. 

In  1301  the  duke  of  Bar  was  compelled  to  do  homage  to  the  king 
of  France  for  all  that  part  of  his  duchy  which  lay  on  the  left  bank  of 
the  Meuse,  including  Domremy.  Thereafter  Domremy  south  of  the 
brook  belonged  to  that  part  of  the  duchy  which,  in  the  technical  lan- 
guage of  feudalism,  "moved"  from  the  kingdom  of  France.  The 
district  north  of  the  brook  still  belonged  to  the  bishop  of  Toul.  Both 
Domremy  and  Greux  continued  to  belong  to  the  family  of  Bourle- 
mont, which  held  lands  of  many  overlords.  Chapellier,  ubi  supra. 

Of  the  three  persons  concerned,  the  king  of  France,  the  duke  of 
Bar,  and  the  bishop  of  Toul,  the  king  was  the  strongest  and  the 
bishop  the  weakest.  At  some  time  which  cannot  be  fixed  precisely, 
probably  early  in  the  fifteenth  century,  Greux  passed  out  of  the 
temporal  power  of  the  bishop  of  Toul,  and  became  a  subject  of  dis- 
pute between  the  king  and  the  duke.  The  king's  officers  were  always 
seeking  to  extend  their  jurisdiction,  while  the  duke,  now  become 
duke  of  Lorraine,  and  therefore  a  powerful  and  independent  prince, 
sought  to  consolidate  his  possessions  and  to  free  himself  from  French 
control.  The  duke  claimed  both  Greux  and  Domremy,  while  the 
king  claimed  both  as  integral  parts  of  his  dominions,  and  not  simply 
as  estates  "  moving "  from  them.  There  were  vicissitudes  in  the 
controversy,  but  at  length  the  Three  Fountains  Brook  seems  to  have 
been  agreed  upon  as  the  boundary,  north  of  which  the  king  could  do 
as  he  pleased,  while  south  of  it  he  had  only  the  shadowy  rights  of  a 
suzerain.  Chapellier,  Etude  hist.,  19  et  seq.;  Lepage,  J.  est-elle 
Lorraine  ?  2de  dissert.  ;  Luce,  xxx.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  even  these  were  renounced,  and  the  territory  south  of 
the  brook  became  incorporated  in  the  independent  duchy  of  Lor- 
raine. (In  1571  and  1575.  See  Lepage,  ubi  supra,  340.)  About 
two  hundred  years  later  (in  1766)  the  whole  of  this  duchy,  Dom- 
remy included,  was  finally  joined  to  France. 

Joan  was  born,  therefore,  a  subject  of  the  duke  of  Bar,  and,  only 
remotely,  of  the  king  of  France.  As  has  been  said,  however,  this 
made  no  difference  in  her  feelings  and  in  those  of  her  neighbors. 


18  JOAN   OF   AEC.  ; 

true.  Twice  a  year  a  tax  must  Ije  paid  on  each  animal 
drawing  a  cart;  the  lord's  harvest  must  be  gathered,  his 
hay  cut  and  stored,  firewood  drawn  to  his  house,  fowls 
and  beef  and  bacon  furnishe^  to  his  table.  Those  who 
had  no  carts  must  carry  his  le^t^rs.1  Services  like  these 
were  the  common  duty  of  all  peasants.  Their  lord  owed 
them  some  sort  of  safeguard,  and  he  lived  among  them. 
The  walls  of  his  castle  were  in  f  sight ;  even  in  Domremy 
he  had  a  little  fortress  or  "strong  house,"  called  the 
Castle  of  the  Island,  over  whi<ih  they  were  compelled  to 
mount  guard,  and  to  which  they  could  flee  in  time  of 
danger.2  The  lord  of  Bourlemont  with  his  wife  and  her 
maids  often  danced  under  a  gigantic  beech-tree  near  the 
village,  where,  as  the  legend  went,  his  ancestor  used  to 
hold  converse  with  a  fairy.  On  Mid-Lent  Sunday,  or 

Standing  by  her  father's  house,  one  of  her  brothers  could  probably 
have  thrown  a  stone  across  the  Three  Fountains  Brook,  and  into  the 
debatable  land  of  Greux.  Thither  Joan  went  to  church  for  months, 
and,  while  watching  the  cattle  in  the  meadows,  she  may  well  have 
crossed  the  almost  imaginary  boundary  line  twenty  times  a  day.  In 
spite  of  the  evidence  of  local  quarrels,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  the 
men  of  Maxey  (for  the  feudal  situation  of  Maxey  see  Lepage,  2de 
dissert.,  287,  288)  across  the  meadows  really  differed  in  national 
politics  from  the  men  of  Domremy  ;  it  is  certain  that  the  men  of 
Domremy  and  Greux  altogether  agreed.  Had  Joan  happened  to  be 
born  north  of  the  brook,  the  political  influence  which  surrounded  her 
would  have  been  precisely  the  same.  (In  addition  to  the  authorities 
above  given,  see  the  monographs  of  M.  Athanase  Reuard  and  of 
M.  Lepage  ;  Georges,  J.  est-elle  champenoise  ou  lorraine  ?  •  J.  au 
point  de  vue  franco-champenois  •  Luce,  France  pendant  la  guerre  de 
cent  ans,  1st  ser.,  263  et  seq.  ;  P.  Landry  d'Arc,  Culte  de  J.,  28,  note  ; 
Bourgaut,  Guide  du  pelerin  a  Domremy,  24  ;  Misset,  J.  champenoise.) 

1  Luce,  285.     The  will  of  one  of  the  lords  of  Bourlemont,  made  in 
1399,  provides  that  if  the  people  of  Domremy  can  show  that  they 
have  been  unjustly  compelled  to  give  him  two  dozen  goslings,  resti- 
tution shall  be  made.     Luce,  19.     See,  also,  Ayroles,  Vraie  Jeanne 
d'Arc,  ii.  90. 

2  P.  i.  66,  J.'s  test.     See  Luce,  France  pendant  la  guerre  de  cent 
ans,  274  et  seq.  ;  Chapellier,  Etude  hist,  et  geog.  sur  Domremy,  14  ; 
Servais,  Annales  du  Barrois,  i.  42. 


DOMREMY.  19 

Fountain  Sunday,  as  they  called  it,  the  boys  and  girls 
went  thither  also,  hung  garlands  on  the  branches  of  the 
fairy  tree,  ate  their  cakes  in  its  deep  shade,  and  drank 
the  waters  of  a  neighboring  fountain  which  healed  the 
sick.1  The  life  of  noble  and  peasant  in  the  Middle  Ages 
was  monotonous  and  miserable  enough,  but  by  moments 
it  was  light-hearted  and  picturesque. 

Each  little  village  had  its  officers,  chosen  from  the 
most  substantial  and  responsible  of  its  people.  Thus 
Domremy  had  its  mayor,  its  sheriff,  and  its  dean,  though 
probably  there  were  not  sixty  men  of  full  age  in  the 
place.  Early  in  the  fifteenth  century,  the  dean  of  Dom- 
remy was  one  James,  or  Jacob,  called  of  Arc,2  very 
likely  from  the  town  of  Arc  en  Barrois.  He  was  born  at 
Ceffonds  in  Champagne,  and  no  one  knows  how  he  came 
to  live  in  Domremy,  fifty  miles  from  his  birthplace. 
Near  the  beginning  of  the  century,  being  then  about  five 
and  twenty,  he  married  Isabel  of  Vouthon,  a  village  four 
or  five  miles  northwest  of  Domremy.  Of  his  family 
there  is  no  authentic  trace ;  the  relatives  of  Isabel  were 
humble  people,  carpenters  and  tilers;  one  reached  the 
dignity  of  a  curacy,  and  another  became  a  monk.3 

The  couple  prospered.  They  had  a  good  house  of 
three  or  four  rooms,  close  by  the  church,  some  meadow 
land,  and  cattle,  of  course.  James  of  Arc  gained  the 
respect  of  his  new  neighbors.  When  they  had  a  lawsuit 
to  carry  on,  when  the  community  wished  to  make  a  con- 

1  P.  ii.  399,  Thevenin  ;  404,  Thiesselin.     See  390,  n.,  391,  n. 

2  In  adopting  the  spelling  d'Arc  rather  than  Dare,  I  have  followed 
the  great  majority  of  French  authorities.    So  Quicherat  (see  Georges, 
/.  est-ellechampenoise?  4),  Beaucourt,  Wallon,  Luce,  Boucher  de  Mo- 
landon,  Sorel,  A.  Renard,  Ldopold  Delisle,  Georges,  Fabre,  Ayroles, 
and  many  others  ;  contra,  Vallet  de  Viriville,  Villiaume*,   Lepage, 
Lescure.     Apart  from  French  usage,  the  English  locution,  Joan  of 
Arc,  is  pretty  well  established. 

8  P.  ii.  388,  Morel  ;  Luce,  xxxvii.,  1.  ;  Labourasse,  Vouthon-haut, 
149  et  seq.  ;  Boucher  de  Molandon,  Famille  de  J.  •  Ib.,  Jacques  d'Arc. 


20  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

tract,  James  of  Arc  was  one  of  the  committee  to  manage 
the  affair.  As  dean  he  commanded  the  watch,  collected 
the  taxes,  and  inspected  the  weights  and  measures.  That 
influence  in  a  rural  community  which  belongs  to  a  man 
a  little  richer  and  a  little  more\  successful  than  most  of 
his  neighbors,  James  of  Arc  earneVl  and  kept.1 

He  had  several  children.  The  o^jaest  son,  named  after 
his  father,  and  called  Jacquemin,  for  sake  of  distinction, 
was  born  very  early  in  the  century.  John  was  the  second 
son;  Peter,  the  youngest  child,  was  born  about  1413. 
Apparently,  there  was  a  daughter  Catherine,  not  much 
younger  than  her  brother  Jacquemin,  who  became  the  wife 
of  a  neighbor,  and  died  soon  after  her  marriage.2  About 
the  feast  of  the  Epiphany,  141 2, 3  Isabel  gave 
birth  to  another  daughter.  In  the  church  of 
the  village  the  child  was  baptized  Joan  or  Janet  by  John 
Minet,  probably  the  curate.  She  had  four  godfathers 
and  as  many  godmothers,  a  number  befitting  the  impor- 
tance of  her  father  in  the  neighborhood.  They  were  not 
all  from  Domremy ;  two  were  of  Greux,  the  next  village, 
where  one  served  as  mayor.  John  Barre  was  of  Neuf- 
chateau,  a  small  town  seven  miles  to  the  southward; 
another  godparent  was  the  wife  of  a  squire.4 

There  are  legends  enough  concerning  the  childhood  of 

Joan  of  Arc,  but  we  know  little  of  it  until  she 

was  twelve  or  thirteen  years  old.     She  learned 

Our   Father,  and  Ave  Maria,  and  the  Creed   from  her 

1  Luce,  cliv.  97 ;  France  pendant  la  guerre  de  cent  ans,  279.    Ayroles, 
Vraie  Jeanne  d'Arc,  ii.  93,  unduly  depreciates  the  office  of  dean. 

2  P.  v.  151,  220.     Peter  was  younger  than  Joan,  v.  228.      He 
could  not  have  been  much  younger,  or  he  would  not  have  served  in 
the  army.     The  existence  and  early  death  of  Catherine  are  pretty 
well  established.     Boucher  de  Molandon,  Famille  de  J.,  72. 

8  P.  i.  46,  J.'s  test.;  v.  116,  Boulainvilliers.  1412  is  the  commonly 
accepted  date,  though  it  is  impossible  to  be  quite  sure. 

4  Luce,  liv.  98,  355  ;  P.  i.  46,  J.'s  test.  ;  ii.  395,  Estellin  ;  398, 
Theveuin  ;  429,  Joyart. 


DOMKEMY.  21 

mother ;  she  played  with  the  other  children  on  holidays, 
and  with  them  she  tended  the  cattle  at  pasture.1  For 
the  rest,  we  know  only  what  other  people  living  in 
the  valley  of  the  Meuse,  men  and  women  and  children, 
thought  and  felt  in  the  years  between  1412  and  1425. 

Joan  was  three  years  old  when  Henry  V.  invaded 
France  and  won  the  battle  of  Agincourt.  For  two  or 
three  years  afterwards,  the  war  was  carried  on  in  the 
northwest  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  valley  of  the  Meuse 
was  little  disturbed.  Even  in  time  of  peace,  not  infre- 
quently some  lord  would  ravage  the  lands  of  his  enemy's 
vassals,  but  every  one  must  take  his  chance  of  a  mishap 
like  that.  Thus  in  the  village  of  Maxey,  just  across  the 
river,  and  less  than  a  mile  from  Domremy,  a  battle  was 
fought  in  1419  between  the  followers  of  two  quarrelsome 
noblemen.  One  of  these,  Robert  of  Saarbruck,  lord  of 
Commercy,  took  some  thirty  prisoners,  whom  he  held  to 
ransom,  among  them  the  squire,  husband  of  Joan's  god- 
mother. At  this  time  Domremy  escaped.2 

The  alliance  between  Philip  of  Burgundy  and  Henry 
V. ,  and  the  treaty  of  Troyes,  made  in  1420,  opened  east- 
ern France  to  the  ravages  of  war,  at  the  same  time  civil 
and  foreign.  Louis,  duke  of  Bar  and  cardinal  bishop 
of  Verdun,  the  feudal  lord  of  Domremy,  tried  to  keep 
peace  with  both  parties,  but  the  times  were  too  troubled 
for  neutrality.  An  embassy  sent  him  by  Philip  of  Bur- 
gundy was  waylaid  on  its  return  by  the  lord  of  Com- 
mercy and  by  Robert  of  Baudricourt.  The  latter  was  a 
partisan  of  the  Armagnacs,  and  a  soldier  of  fortune,  who 
held  the  little  city  of  Vaucouleurs  for  the  dauphin.  In 
vain  the  cardinal  disavowed  the  outrage ;  in  vain  he  paid 
the  ambassadors'  ransom:  Philip  of  Burgundy  would 

1  P.  i.  46,  67,  J.'s  test. 

2  Luce,  Ixiv.  301.     There  was  a  tree  near  Neufchateau  called  the 
partisans'  oak,  which  took  its  name  from  the  men  who  were  hanged 
on  it.     Lescure,  Jeanne  Dare,  48. 


22  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

hear  no  excuse,  and  the  cardinal  was  forced  to  take 
sides  with  the  Armagnacs.  The  Burgundians  invaded 
his  duchy,  and  he  summoned  to  his  aid  "  the  most  cruel 
and  least  pitiful  of  all  the  Armagnac  captains,"  the 
Gascon  Stephen  of  Vignolles,  called  La  Hire.  This 
man,  of  whom  we  shall  hear  much  more,  was  famous 
throughout  France  for  his  bravery,  his  brutal  rapacity, 
and  his  savage  humor.1 

Neither  La  Hire  nor  his  Burgundian  rivals  discrimi- 
nated between  friend  and  foe.  Terrified  by  the  outrages 
of  his  new  allies,  the  weary  cardinal  resigned  his  duchy 
to  Rene  of  Anjou,  a  boy  of  twelve,  and  constituted  the 
duke  of  Lorraine  the  boy's  guardian.2  Charles  of  Lor- 
raine was  soon  persuaded  to  swear  allegiance  to  Henry 
V.,  but  his  action  had  little  effect  on  the  freebooters,  or 
"skinners,"  who  were  ravaging  the  duchy  of  Bar.  Up 
and  down  the  valley  of  the  Meuse  they  rode,  pretending 
revenge  for  hostile  attacky  but  in  reality  gratifying  their 
greed  of  booty  and  thei^  lust  of  cruelty.  Their  deeds 
make  our  ears  tingle  even  now,  whether  the  story  is  read 
in  the  rhetorical  narrative  o|'  a  chronicler,  in  the  prosaic 
minutes  of  a  judicial  inquest,  or  in  the  preamble  of  the 
pardons  which  they  alwara  got  for  the  asking.  They 
drove  off  all  the  cattle,  tpey  burnt  the  crops,  either  to 
light  their  road  or  in  mere  wantonness,  and  we  know  the 
contents  of  each  peasant*  s  house  by  the  list  of  his  poor 
belongings  which  they  destroyed.3  This  was  the  most 
humane  part  of  their  work.  "These  men,"  wrote  a 
statesman  of  the  day,  "under  pretense  of  blackmail  and 
so  forth,  seized  men,  women,  and  little  children,  regard- 
less of  age  and  sex ;  violated  women  and  girls ;  killed  hus- 
bands and  fathers  before  their  wives  and  daughters ;  car- 

1  Luce,  Ixiv.,  Ixvii.  76,  306  ;  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1431.     See  Mon- 
strelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  xxii. 

2  Luce,  Ixix.,  Ixxii. 

8  See  Luce,  262,  273. 


DOMREMY.  23 

ried  off  nurses,  and  left  their  children  to  die  of  hunger ; 
took  pregnant  women,  put  them  in  the  stocks,  let  their 
offspring  die  without  baptism,  and  then  threw  mother 
and  child  into  the  river;  seized  priests  and  monks,  put 
them  to  the  torture,  and  beat  them  until  they  were  maimed 
or  driven  mad.  Some  they  roasted,  dashed  out  the  teeth 
of  others,  and  others  they  beat  with  great  clubs.  God 
knows  what  cruelty  they  wrought." l 

The  wretched  men  of  Domremy  were  almost  defense- 
less. James  of  Arc  and  another  well-to-do  peasant  hired 
of  the  lady  of  Bourlemont  the  "Castle of  the  Island,"  the 
fortified  house  and  court-yard  already  mentioned,  stand- 
ing between  the  village  and  the  river,  wherein  they  could 
take  refuge  with  their  cattle,  and  try  to  keep  themselves 
against  sudden  attack.  Joan's  oldest  brother,  Jacquemin, 
and  four  other  villagers  went  surety  for  the  rent,  which 
was  considerable.2  In  1423  the  men  of  Domremy  and 
Greux  gave  a  bond  to  the  lord  of  Commercy,  a  ruffian 
whose  whole  life  was  spent  in  robbery  and  cruelty.  By 
it  these  villages  were  bound  to  pay  a  hearth  tax  for  the 
immunity  granted  them,  and  upon  it  the  principal  men  of 
the  two  places,  James  of  Arc  among  them,  offered  them- 
selves as  sureties.  Such  bonds  were  openly  given  and 
received.  This  was  executed  before  a  notary  of  the  eccle- 
siastical court  of  Toul,  and,  with  fine  legal  irony,  is  ex- 
pressed to  be  given  "with  good  will,  and  without  any 
force,  constraint,  or  guile  whatsoever."  Very  likely  sim- 
ilar bonds  were  given  by  the  men  of  Domremy  to  other 
noble  robbers.  We  are  told  that  these  "put  to  ransom  a 
poor  village  in  eight  or  ten  different  places,  and  fired  the 
village  and  church  if  the  blackmail  was  not  paid."3 

1  Jean  Juvenal  des  Ursins,  in  Beaucourt,  iii.  389,  390. 

2  Luce,  France  pendant  la  guerre  de  cent  ans,  277. 

8  Luce,  Ixxvi.  97,  359  ;  Beaucourt,  iii.  389  ;  Tuetey,  Ecorcheurs,  i. 
50,  89,  94,  95,  157  ;  Thomas,  Etats  provinciaux  de  la  France  centrale, 
i.  325  ;  Bibl.  EC.  Charles,  t.  v.  24  ;  "A  Successful  Highwayman  in  the 


24  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

The  Castle  of  the  Island  and  the  promise  of  Robert  of 
Commercy  were  scant  protection  to  the  men  of  Domremy, 
though  they  could  find  no  better.  By  good  fortune, 
rather  than  through  any  precaution,  the  village  escaped 
for  several  years,  but  its  time  was  sure  to  come.  Every 
traveler  that  passed  along  the  great  highroad  through 
Domremy  brought  news  of  fresh  horrors.  One  day  Joan 
heard  of  the  death  of  her  cousin's  husband,  killed  within 
two  years  of  his  marriage.1  At  times  the  sky  to  the 
northward  smoked  from  the  burning  villages,  and  the 
lieutenant  of  the  duke  of  Bar  forbade  the  peasants  to 
light  a  fire,  lest  the  freebooters  should  use  it  to  destroy 
the  neighborhood.2 

As  has  been  said,  the  plundering  was  indiscriminate. 
The  wretched  countryman  neither  knew  nor  cared  if  it 
was  Englishman,  Burgundian,  or  Armagnac  who  burnt  his 
house  before  his  eyes  and  his  children  in  it.  Indeed,  the 
ruffians  changed  sides  so  often  that  at  times  they  hardly 
remembered  which  master  they  were  pretending  to  serve. 
Speaking  generally,  however,  there  were  degrees  in  the 
brutality  which  possessed  the  soldiers  of  all  parties.  The 
English  at  this  time  usually  kept  the  appearance  of  a 
regular  army  under  some  sort  of  discipline.  The  Bur- 
gundian irregulars  served  a  master  who  commonly  paid 
his  troops,  and  who  tried  to  control  them  by  himself  or 
his  lieutenants.  The  Armagnacs,  those  who  acknow- 
ledged Charles  VII.  for  king,  knew  well  that  he  was  too 
poor  to  pay  them,  too  cowardly  to  lead  them  in  the  field, 
and  was  ready  to  pardon  any  outrage  they  might  think  it 
worth  while  to  confess.  Naturally,  therefore,  the  true 
soldiers  of  fortune,  men  hating  authority  and  reckless  as 
they  were  cruel,  more  and  more  inclined  to  the  side  of 
Charles,  and  committed  the  worst  outrages  in  his  name. 

Middle  Ages,"  Atlantic  Monthly,  Nov.  1890.     For  Robert,  see  Du- 
mont,  Hist.  Commercy,  i.  209  et  seq. 

1  Luce,  Ixxiv.  2  Luce,  142. 


DOMREMY.  25 

For  all  this,  the  common  people  of  France  year  by  year 
attached  themselves  more  earnestly  to  the  cause  of 
Charles  VII.  Before  the  English  invasion,  while  Ar- 
magnacs  and  Burgundians  fought  for  the  rule  of  the 
kingdom,  and  for  the  guardianship  of  the  crazy  king, 
both  parties  were  willing  to  betray  France  to  the  English 
if  they  might  get  some  temporary  advantage.  Even  after 
the  battle  of  Agincourt  their  intrigues  continued,  and 
all  patriotism  seemed  dead ;  only  the  civic  pride  of  some 
city  like  Rouen  defended  it  against  Henry  V.  By  the 
murder  of  John  of  Burgundy  at  the  bridge  of  Montereau, 
the  attitude  of  the  two  parties  was  completely  changed. 
Philip  the  Good  allied  himself  at  once  to  the  English, 
and  thus  made  of  the  Armagnacs  the  patriotic  party, 
almost  against  their  will.  Slowly  but  steadily  this  fact 
entered  into  the  minds  of  the  common  people.  La  Hire 
and  his  ruffians  were  very  cruel,  more  cruel  than  the 
Englishmen  of  the  regent  Bedford,  but  only  through  La 
Hire  and  the  like  of  him  was«  there  any  hope  of  final 
escape.  Peace  could  come  only  by  the  overthrow  of  the 
English ;  when  they  were  gone,  La  Hire  and  his  compan- 
ions could  be  dealt  with  as  they  deserved. 

Of  course  the  peasants  felt  this  almost  unconsciously; 
they  did  not  reason  much  about  it.  The  old  partisan 
hatred  did  not  disappear  at  once,  and  patriotic  enthusi- 
asm was  kindled  slowly.  The  Burgundians  of  Paris  at 
first  welcomed  the  English,  and  the  people  of  Normandy 
were  reasonably  quiet  under  English  rule,  so  long  as  the 
Armagnac  partisans  were  kept  out  of  the  province.  Few 
noblemen  could  be  trusted  by  either  side ;  but  the  com- 
mon people  came  slowly  to  recognize  that  the  question 
was  no  longer  between  Burgundian  and  Armagnac,  but 
between  foreigners  and  Frenchmen.  Before  that  awful 
struggle  French  patriotism  hardly  existed.  At  the  end 
of  the  Hundred  Years'  War  it  was  well  grown.1 

1  See  Luce,  Chron.  de  Mt.  St.  Michel,  i.  300,  for  the  story  of  a  man 
who  had  been  twice  made  prisoner  by  the  Armagnacs,  yet  loved  them 


26  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

What  was  true  of  the  rest  of  the  kingdom  was  true 
of  a  village  like  Domremy.  Much  learning  has  been 
wasted  in  proving  that  the  part  of  Domremy  in  which 
Joan  was  born  belonged  to  the  royal  domain.  Ingenuity 
has  been  exhausted  in  guessing  why  its  people  were  faith- 
ful to  Charles.  In  fact,  they  shared  the  feelings  of  other 
Frenchmen,  of  nearly  all  men  not  nobles  or  soldiers  who 
spoke  the  French  language,  whatever  might  be  their  pre- 
cise feudal  relation  to  the  crown.  Personal  and  local 
feuds  still  lasted,  of  course.  There  was  a  peasant  even 
in  Domremy  who  passed  for  a  Burgundian.  The  boys 
of  Joan's  age  at  Domremy  used  to  fight  in  the  meadows 
with  the  boys  of  Maxey,  the  former  as  Armagnacs,  the 
latter  as  Burgundian  s ;  but  these  childish  quarrels,  which 
lasted  into  the  present  century,  were  probably  the  remains 
of  an  old  local  feud  between  the  two  villages,  rather  than 
the  result  of  recent  political  strife.1 

In  these  surroundings  Joan  passed  her  childhood. 
Her  father  came  from  a  village  whose  people  may  have 
had  a  traditional  affection  for  the  king  of  France,2  but 
his  feelings  differed  little  from  those  of  his  neighbors. 
Everywhere  the  child  learned  that  the  English,  aided  by 
the  duke  of  Burgundy,  were  the  cause  of  all  the  horrors 
about  her,  and  that  the  only  hope  lay  in  Charles  VII., 
her  rightful  king.  The  time  came  when  she  saw  those 
horrors  with  her  own  eyes. 

more  than  he  did  the  English.  See,  also,  Bibl.  EC.  Charles,  i.  liv. 
475. 

1  P.  ii.  423,  Gerard  d'Epinal ;  i.  65,  66,  J.'s  test.  ;  Luce,  France 
pendant  la  guerre  de  cent  ans,  276. 

8  Luce,  si. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  VOICES. 

SOME  forty  miles  west  of  Domremy,  the  castle  of  Dou- 
levant  was  held  by  Henry  of  Orly,  a  soldier  of 
fortune,  who  had  gathered  to  himself  a  band  of 
freebooters,  and  with  them  lived  off  the  countryside. 
He  cared  little  for  English,  Armagnacs,  or  Burgundians ; 
in  the  utter  confusion  of  men  and  parties,  he  plundered 
all  the  poor  and  weak,  while  he  waged  war  and  made 
alliances  with  the  greater  feudal  lords,  changing  sides 
with  bewildering  rapidity.  One  day,  when  Joan  was 
about  thirteen  years  old,  his  men  fell  upon  Domremy  so 
suddenly  that  the  people  could  not  escape  to  the  Castle 
of  the  Island.  The  robbers  quickly  gathered  all  the 
cattle  of  the  village,  stripped  the  houses  of  everything 
worth  carrying  off,  and  rode  away  with  their  booty. 
Apparently,  they  did  not  kill  the  peasants,  or  even  burn 
their  houses,  but  the  livelihood  of  the  village  was  gone. 
The  herd  was  so  large  that  the  castle  of  Doulevant  would 
not  hold  the  cattle,  but,  as  they  werexdriveji  some  fifty 
miles  from  Domremy,  Henry  of  Orly  fea,red/no  pursuit. 

In  their  distress   the   peaceful  peasants?  called  upon 
Joanna  of  Joinville,  then  the  representativj  \  of  the  family 


of  Bourlemont,  to  which  Domremy  belong 


sent  for  help  to  her  kinsman,  Anthony,  count  of  Vaude- 
mont,  one  of  the  most  powerful  lords  in  Lo  -raine.  Vaude- 
mont's  men  retook  the  cattle  without  much  difficulty; 


they  beat  off  Orly,  when  he  came  riding 


sd.     The  lady 


ter  them,  and 


drove  the  herd  in  safety  back  to  Domremy:;1     There  was 
great  joy  in  the  village  at  its  return. 
1  Luce,  Ixxxi.  275. 


28  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Thus  Domremy  learned  the  meaning  of  war.  The 
English  were  not  directly  responsible  for  the  raid,  as 
Orly  seems  to  have  been  in  the  service  of  neither  party, 
while  the  count  of  Vaudemont  was  distinctly  on  the 
Anglo-Burgundian  side.  Nevertheless,  as  has  been  said, 
the  common  people  were  coming  to  feel  that  peace  and 
quiet  were  possible  only  after  the  English  should  be 
driven  from  France. 

Soon  after  this  raid,1  at  about  noon  in  the  summer- 
time, Joan  was  in  her  father's  garden,  a  small  plot  of 
ground  between  the  house  and  the  church.  At  her  left 
hand,  toward  the  church,  she  saw  a  great  light  and  had 
a  vision  of  the  archangel  Michael,  surrounded  by  other 
angels.  The  little  girl,  only  about  thirteen  years  old, 
was  much  frightened,  and  did  not  know  what  was  come 
to  her;  soon  the  vision  faded  way.  In  the  days  and 
weeks  which  followed,  however/  it  returned  again  and 
again.  Her  fear  passed  away  as  she  became  familiar 
with  the  sight,  and  fear  was  succeeded  by  great  comfort 
and  peace,  when  at  length  she  believed  that  the  archangel 
had  verily  appeared  to  her.  He  bade  her  be  a  good  girl, 
and  promised  that  God  would  help  her;  he  said  that 
Saint  Catherine  and  Saint  Margaret  would  soon  visit 
her,  commissioned  by  God  to  advise  and  to  guide  her, 
and  he  ordered  her  to  obey  their  words.  His  prophecy 
came  to  pass,  and  she  beheld  the  two  saints,  their  gra- 
cious faces  richly  crowned.  They  told  her  their  names, 
and,  vaguely  at  first,  they  bade  her  go  to  the  help  of  the 
king  of  France.  At  once  she  took  their  voices  as  the 

1  This  is  M.  Luce's  conjecture,  and  it  is  a  very  happy  one,  though 
without  positive  proof.  At  P.  i.  72,  Joan  says  it  was  seven  years 
before  her  trial,  i.  e.,  1424  ;  at  i.  52,  when  she  was  thirteen  years  old, 
t.  e.,  1425.  Neither  statement  was  intended  to  be  an  exact  one. 
Moreover,  the  date  of  the  raid  is  not  certainly  known  'within  a  year 
or  two.  See  Ayroles,  Vraie  Jeanne  d'Arc,  ii.  278  et  seq.  M.  Luce 
is  certainly  fanciful  at  times,  but  P.  Ayroles  is  inclined  to  adopt  an 
opinion  because  it  is  opposed  to  that  of  M.  Luce. 


THE   VOICES.  29 

guide  of  her  life,  asking  no  reward  of  them,  except  the 
salvation  of  her  soul.1 

These  were  the  subjective  impressions  on  the  mind  of 
Joan.  Their  objective  cause  and  explanation  have  been 
widely  sought,  but  if  we  try  to  connect  the  past  life  and 
the  surroundings  of  the  little  girl  with  the  saints  whom 
she  saw,  we  shall  find  the  evidence  of  such  connection 
very  scanty.  Six  years  earlier,  Charles  VII.,  when 
dauphin,  had  in  some  sort  taken  St.  Michael  for  his 
patron,  and  a  picture  of  the  archangel  for  his  armorial 
device.2  The  great  fortified  Norman  monastery  of  Mount 
St.  Michael  at  the  Peril  of  the  Sea  had  been  blockaded 
by  the  English,  and  at  about  the  time  of  Joan's  vision  its 
defenders  had  won  a  victory  which  raised  the  blockade.3 
It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  a  peasant's  child,  thirteen 
years  old,  should  attach  importance  to  the  heraldic  device 
of  her  king,  and  should  be  deeply  moved  by  a  victory  of 
some  local  note  won  more  than  three  hundred  miles  from 
her  home,  but  it  is  not  likely.  Catherine  was  the  name 
of  Joan's  sister,  and  there  was  a  statue  of  St.  Margaret 
in  the  church  of  Domremy.4  In  this  way  Joan  may 
have  come  to  regard  these  saints  with  especial  reverence, 
but  the  cause  of  her  veneration,  if  it  existed  before  her 
vision,  is  more  probably  buried  with  the  lost  history  of 
her  early  childhood  and  of  the  local  traditions  and  wor- 
ship of  the  village. 

The  occasion  and  circumstances  of  her  vision  were 
known  at  the  time  only  to  the  little  girl.  The  day  of  the 
vision  was  probably  a  fast  day,  though  this  is  not  certain. 
Such  days  are  far  too  common  in  the  Catholic  Church, 

1  P.  i.  51,  52,  57,  70,  73,  128,  169-171,  480,  J.'s  test. 

2  Luce,  Ixxxix.,  xcvi.  87.   For  an  accouiit  of  statuettes  of  St.  Michael, 
etc.,  see  Almanack  de  J.,  1890,  17,  note. 

8  Luce,  ciii.  ;  Ib.,  Chron.  de  Mt.  St.  Michel,  i.  28,  202. 
4  Bourgaut,  Guide  du  pe'lerin  a  Domremy,  60.     St.  Catherine  was 
patron  of  the  church  of  Maxey.     Luce,  cxxviii. 


30  JOAN   OF   AKC. 

however,  to  produce  any  disturbing  effect.1  The  life 
of  a  child,  living  with  other  children  in  an  obscure 
hamlet,  leaves  no  record  from  which  its  history  can  be 
written.  Just  after  Joan  became  famous,  a  story  went 
that  one  day  she  had  been  running  races  in  the  meadows 
of  the  Meuse,  always  beating  her  companions,  and  seem- 
ing to  fly  rather  than  to  tread  the  ground.  As  she 
stopped,  breathless,  a  boy  told  her  that  her  mother  needed 
her  help;  but  when  Joan  reached  the  cottage,  Isabel 
answered  that  she  had  not  been  sent  for.  The  girl  turned 
about  to  rejoin  her  companions,  then  suddenly  saw  a  light 
and  heard  a  voice.  This  account  of  the  first  vision,  how- 
ever, is  contained  in  a  letter  which  is  full  of  pure  legend, 
and  cannot  be  trusted.2 

Joan  herself  seldom  spoke  of  hir  visions ; 3  like  many 
of  the  deepest  religious  experiences,  they  were 
'  much  too  sacred  for  comnto^i  conversation.  For 
several  years  she  said  not  a  worp  to  any  one.  After- 
wards, when  it  became  absolutely  necessary  to  say  some- 
thing in  order  to  establish  her  divine  mission,  she  spoke 
of  what  she  had  seen,  but  always  with  reluctance  and 
reserve;  with  still  greater  reluctance  she  spoke  to  her 
judges  at  her  trial,  and  yet  from  her  own  story  all  our 
real  knowledge  of  her  visions  has  come.  That  she  both 
saw  and  heard  the  saints  we  know,  but  precisely  what 
she  saw,  or  how  she  heard  them  speak,  she  never  told 
any  one.4  Two  things  only  are  certain:  first,  that  she 
was  sincere,  both  then  and  afterwards,  and,  second,  that 
no  trick  was  played  upon  he"r  by  others.  It  appears, 

1  In  her  testimony  Joan  is  reported  as  saying  only  that  she  had 
not   fasted    on    the   preceding   day.      (P.  i.    52,  corrected    by   the 
insertion  of  "  non."     See  Taxil,  Le  Martyre  de  J.,   101.)     In   the 
digest  of  her  testimony  prepared  by  the  court,  i.  216,  she  is  made 
to  say  also  that  "  she  was  then  fasting." 

2  P.  v.  114,  Boulainvilliers. 

3  See  P.  i.  128,  J.'s  test. 

4  See  P.  iii.  12,  Bastard  ;  i.  85,  86,  J.'s  test. 


THE   VOICES.  31 

moreover,  by  very  strong  evidence,  that  in  all  other  re- 
spects she  was  quite  healthy,  both  in  body  and  in  mind.1 
Further  than  this,  history  cannot  go,  and  the  choice  be- 
tween insanity  and  inspiration  must  be  made  by  another 
science.2 

Joan's  heavenly  visitors  caused  no  great  change  in  her 
outward  life.  She  busied  herself  in  spinning,  in  sewing, 
and  in  helping  her  mother  about  the  house ;  she  worked 
in  the  fields  and  gathered  the  harvest  with  other  girls  of 
her  age,  and  now  and  then  she  took  her  turn  in  watching 
the  cattle  at  pasture.3  She  was  a  good  girl,  nursed  the 
sick,  and  occasionally  gave  her  bed  to  some  wayfarer  who 
passed  the  night  in  her  father's  house.4  She  went  to 
confession  and  to  mass,  visited  the  oratories  and  chapels 
on  the  hillsides,  liked  to  hear  the  church-bells  ring  out 
over  the  valley  of  the  Meuse,  and  chid  the  sexton  when 
he  was  lazy  or  forgetful.  Sometimes  the  other  children 
of  the  village,  as  children  will,  laughed  at  her  for  her 
piety.5  She  was  reserved,  and  having  a  great  secret 
which  she  told  to  no  one,  she  lived  by  herself  more  than 
most  girls  of  her  age ;  but  she  had  her  friends,  whom  she 
loved  and  who  loved  her.  She  was  strong  and  brave, 
very  earnest,  but  having  much  of  the  shrewd  humor  of 
the  peasants  of  Lorraine.  After  she  had  become  famous, 
the  villagers  strained  their  memories,  and  roused  their 
imaginations,  to  tell  marvelous  stories  of  her  girlhood, 
but,  as  she  grew  up  among  them,  they  thought  of  her 

1  Aulon  says  that  he  heard  from   several  women  that  Joan  did 
not  menstruate,  but  his  recollection  of  hearsay  twenty-five  years  or 
more  after  the  event  is  almost  worthless.     Many  pure  legends  about 
Joan  are  much  better  vouched  than  this.     He  himself  says  that  she 
was  fair  and  well  formed.      P.  iii.  219.      See,  also,  iii.  100,  Alenc.on. 

2  See  Appendix  B. 

8  P.  i.  51,  66,  J.'s  test.  ;  ii.  390,  Morel  ;  396,  Estellin  ;  424, 
Musnier. 

4  P.  ii.  424,  Musnier  ;   427,  Gdrardin. 

5  P.  ii.  402,  Syon  ;  413,  Drapier  ;  420,  Waterin  ;  433,  Colin. 


32  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

only  as  a  good  girl,   like  other  good  girls  whom  they 
knew. 

For  three  years  the  saints  visited  Joan,1  and  their 
"voices,"  as  she  called  them,  told  tyer  more  and  more 
distinctly  that  she  must  save  {France/  though  as  yet  they 
gave  her  no  definite  commands.  J^Ieantime,  the  fortune 
of  Charles  VII.  and  of  the  Arma/nacs,  especially  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Domremy,  sweat  from  bad  to  worse. 
In  1427,  and  in  1428,  the  JAi/glo-Burgundians  carried 
on  vigorous  campaigns,  and  before  midsummer,  1428, 
in  the  whole  east  of  France,  only  the  town 

1428 

of  Vaucouleurs  held  /or  Charles  VII.2  Several 
Burgundian  leaders  advanced  to  besiege  it;  its  captain, 
Kobert  of  Baudricourt,  prepared  to  defend  himself, 
but  he  could  not  protect  the  open  country.  Domremy 
was  only  thirteen  miles  south  of  Vaucouleurs,  and  the 
peasants  left  their  homes  while  there  was  time  to  es- 
cape. Moving  in  a  body,  they  drove  their  cattle  seven 
miles  south  to  Neufchateau,  a  walled  town  belonging  to 
the  duke  of  Lorraine,  who  was  an  ally  of  the  English. 
In  spite  of  the  duke's  politics,  the  men  of  Neufchateau 
very  likely  sympathized  with  Baudricourt;  at  any  rate, 
they  received  with  hospitality  the  outcasts  of  Domremy. 
The  family  of  Arc  was  lodged  for  a  fortnight  in  an  inn 
kept  by  an  honest  woman  named  La  Eousse,  whom  Joan 
helped  with  the  housework,  at  other  times  watching  the 
cattle  as  they  fed  in  their  new  pastures.3 

1  See  P.  iv.  326,  Doyen  de  St.  Thibaud. 

2  The  English  gathered  a  force  in  1427,  and  the  war  went  on  dur- 
ing that  year  and  the  first  part  of  the  next ;  Luce,  cliii.  et  seq.     A 
truce  had  been  made  between  France  and  Burgundy,  which  covered 
Vaucouleurs,  but  this  did  not  protect  the  place  from  the  English, 
nor,  apparently,  from  all  the  followers  of  Burgundy.     Lucer  clix. 
215,  and  211,  note. 

8  Luce,  clxix.  220  ;  P.  i.  51,  J.'s  test.  ;  ii.  392,  Morel  ;  411,  La- 
cloppe  ;  428,  Gerardin  ;  431,  Joyart.  It  is  not  certain  that  the 
attack  on  Vaucouleurs  was  the  cause  of  the  flight  to  Neufchateau, 


THE   VOICES.  33 

The  siege  of  Vaucouleurs  did  not  last  long;  Baudri- 
court  was  wary  and  shifty  as  well  as  resolute  and  brave. 
In  some  way  or  other  he  made  peace  with  the  Burgun- 
dian  captain,  and  this  without  an  immediate  surrender. 
Perhaps  there  was  a  bribe  given ;  some  of  the  Burgun- 
dian  partisans  were  not  above  selling  the  interest  of  their 
English  employers  for  private  gain.  Perhaps  the  duke 
of  Burgundy  recalled  his  followers;  more  than  once 
Philip  the  Good  was  seized  with  a  fit  of  jealousy  lest  the 
English  should  grow  too  strong,  and  Baudricourt  may 
have  sought  his  protection.  More  likely,  the  captain  of 
Vaucouleurs  agreed  to  surrender  the  town  unless  relief 
came  to  him  by  a  day  fixed.  In  the  fifteenth  century 
such  agreements  were  common,  and  they  provided  that, 
until  the  day  arrived,  the  garrison  should  be  left  in  pos- 
session and  the  besiegers  withdrawn.  At  any  rate,  the 
Anglo-Burgundian  force  withdrew,  and  Baudricourt  kept 
Vaucouleurs  for  Charles  VII.1 

As  soon  as  the  danger  was  over,  the  peasants  returned 
to  Domremy,  and  found  that  the  village  had  been  burned. 
Their  cattle  were  safe,  and  some  of  their  household  goods 
had  been  carried  to  Neuf chateau;  their  stone  cottages 
were  easily  roofed  again,  but  signs  of  the  fire  remained 

but  it  is  altogether  probable.  See  Luce,  clxx.  ;  P.  ii.  392,  note  2. 
Ayroles,  Vraie  Jeanne  d'Arc,  ii.  288,  supposes  that  the  flight  to  Neuf- 
chateau  took  place  in  1425,  and  that  there  was  no  second  raid  in 
1428.  Doubtless  he  succeeds  in  showing  that  some  of  M.  Luce's 
statements  regarding  the  campaign  of  1428  are  exaggerated,  but  as 
to  the  main  fact  I  think  M.  Luce  is  right.  Ayroles  relies  too  much 
upon  the  legends  contained  in  the  letter  of  Boulainvilliers,  and  upon 
the  supposed  visit  of  Joan  to  Vaucouleurs  in  1428. 

1  Luce,  clxix.  232.  See,  also,  Luce,  323,  328,  and  the  conduct  of 
Philip  regarding  the  siege  of  Orleans,  p.  89,  infra.  It  is  probable  that 
the  town  was  not  regularly  invested.  On  July  16-17  Antoine  de 
Vergy  passed  the  attacking  army  in  review  at  St.  Urbain,  while  only 
two  or  three  days  later  he  notified  advancing  reinforcements  that 
they  were  not  needed.  See  Luce,  220  ;  Ayroles,  Vraie  Jeanne  d'Arc, 
ii.  78,  447. 


34  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

everywhere,  and  their  church  was  so  far  destroyed  that 
mass  could  be  said  in  it  no  longer.1  Its  black  ruins  stood 
next  the  garden  of  Joan's  father,  on  that  side  of  the 
garden  where  the  vision  had  first  appeared  to  her.  She 
now  understood  more  fully  the  meaning  of  her  voices 
when  they  told  her  of  the  miseries  of  France.2 

At  this  time  Joan  was  in  her  seventeenflTyear,  a  well- 
grown  girl,  strong  and  healthy,  dark-haired,  with  a  pleas- 
ant face  and  a  sweet  voice.3  She  might  well  think  of 
marrying,  and-  a  young  man  sought  her  hand.  Neither 
then  nor  at  any  time  was  Joan  an  ascetic ;  she  kept  the 
fasts  of  the  church,  as  part  of  her  Christian  duty,  but 
she  practiced  no  extraordinary  self -mortification.  God 
had  called  her  to  do  a  work,  impossible  of  accomplishment 
if  she  married,  and,  therefore,  from  the  first  she  vowed 
to  remain  a  virgin  so  long  as  He  should  please.  When 
her  errand  was  Hone,  her  vow  would  expire,  and  she,  if 
she  were  living,  would  be  left  a  peasant  girl  of  Domremy, 
like  her  friends  about  her. 

She  refused  her  suitor  without  hesitation.  He  was 
persistent,  and  seems  to  have  had  the  support  of  her 
parents ;  pretending  a  betrothal,  he  cited  her  before  the 
ecclesiastical  court  of  Toul.  To  Toul  she  went,  seventeen 
miles  away,  her  voices  telling  her  that  she  should  prevail. 
Before  the  judge  she  swore  to  tell  the  truth,  and  she  told 
it  so  plainly  that  her  suitor's  case  was  dismissed.4 

After  the  burning  of  Domremy  and  the  lawsuit  at 
Toul,  the  commands  given  Joan  by  her  voices  became 
more  definite.  In  the  autumn  of  14g£-'fne  eyes  of  all 
Frenchmen  were  turned  to  Orleans^  against  which  the 

1  See  P.  ii.  396,  Estellin. 

2  See  P.  i.  66,  178,  J.'s  test.  ;  iii.  6,  Bastard  ;  205,  Seguin. 

3  See  P.  iii.  100,  219  ;  iv.  205,  306,  523  ;  v.  107,  108,  120,  133  ; 
Relation   ined.  sur  J.,   19 ;    Vallet   de   Viriville,   Recherches  icono- 
graphiques. 

4  P.  i.  127,  131,  J.'s  test. 


THE  VOICES.  35 

English  had  just  encamped.  If  Orleans  fell,  France  was 
lost.  Already  Joan  had  been  told  that  she  was  to  save 
France;  now  the  voices  told  her  that  she  must  save 
Orleans.  This  was  not  all.  Charles  VII.,  though  her 
ruler  by  divine  right,  was  to  her  only  the  Dauphin,  the 
heir  to  the  throne,  not  her  consecrated  king.  Greatly  as 
she  revered  him,  she  would  not  use  the  name  given  him 
by  law  and  by  custom;  until  his  coronation  she  always 
called  him  the  Dauphin.1  This  coronation  and  consecra- 
tion could  be  had  only  at  Rheims,  and  Rheims  was  in 
English  hands,  many  miles  from  the  nearest  possession 
of  the  Armagnacs.  As  soon  as  the  siege  of  Orleans  was 
raised,  therefore,  she  must  lead  the  Dauphin  to  Rheims 
and  see  him  made  a  king.  What  she  shoidd  do  after  she 
had  accomplished  this,  her  voices  did  not  direct  precisely, 
but  they  spoke  to  her  somewhat  vaguely  of  driving  the 
English  from  France. 

These  were  the  commands  laid  upon  this  girl  by  her 
heavenly  visitors.  Joan  herself  revise  coveted  the  honor 
of  saving  France;  unless^jt^wigfe  done  at  God's  bidding, 
she  would  rather  Jbe  torn  in  pieces  by  wild  horses  than 
leave  Domremy.  More  precise  and  more  pressing,  how- 
ever, became  the  divine  command :  she  must  go  to  Robert 
of  Baudricourt,  and  ask  him  for  an  escort  to  the  Dauphin ; 
in  vain  she  answered  that  she  was  a  poor  girl  who  could 
neither  ride  nor  lead  an  army.  Two  or  three  times  a 
week  the  voices  bade  her  go  to  Vaucouleurs.2 

She  trusted  her  secret  to  no  one,  not  even  to  the 
priest,  —  silent  not  only  from  natural  reserve,  but  also 
because  she  feared  hindrance  in  her  work.  To  a  girl 
living  in  a  small  village,  however,  absolute  concealment 
of  her  feelings  was  almost  impossible.  Once  or  twice 
when  the  Armagnacs  in  the  village  became  discouraged, 
or  when  some  stray  Burgundian  sympathizer  began  to 

1  P.  ii.  456,  Poulengy  ;  iii.  20,  Garivel  ;  iv.  206,  Chron.  Puc. 

2  P.  i.  52,  J.'s  test. 


36  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

boast,  Joan  was  tempted  to  hint  darkly  that  help  would 
come  to  France.1  By  reason,  perhaps,  of  some  such  hint, 
or  of  her  stern  refusal  to  marry,  her  father  became  sus- 
picious, and  dreamed  of  her  departure.  With  natural 
feeling,  the  rude  peasant  told  his  household  that  he  would 
rather  drown  his  daughter  than  let  her  go  off  with  the 
soldiers.2  As  winter  came  on,  the  siege  of  Orleans  was 
pushed  more  vigorously,  and  more  urgent  became  the 
commands  of  Joan's  voices;  for  three  years  they  had 
constantly  guided  her,  and  she  could  not  disobey  them. 

1  P.  ii.  440,  Lebuin.     I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Joan's  public 
career  made  these  hints  seem  more  definite  when  remembered  than 
when  they  were  uttered. 

2  P.  i.  131,  J.'s  test.     See  iv.  205,  Chron.  Puc. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
VAUCOULEURS. 

IN  the  hamlet  of  Little  Burey,  or  Burey  en  Vaux,1  on 
the  road  between  Domremy  and  Vaucouleurs,  lived  Du- 
rand  Laxart,  a  laborer,  the  husband  of  Joan  le  Vauseul, 
who  was  a  cousin  of  Joan  of  Arc.2  Joan  could  not  go 
directly  from  Domremy  to  Eobert  of  Baudricourt,  for  if 
her  father  should  learn  her  plan,  he  would  certainly  pre- 
vent her  departure.  Burey,  ten  or  eleven  miles  from 
Domremy,  was  only  about  three  miles  from  Vaucouleurs, 
and  if  Laxart  could  be  persuaded  to  help  her,  it  would 
be  easy  to  reach  Vaucouleurs  from  his  house.  In  the  last 
days  of  1428,  or  at  the  beginning  of  1429,  his  January, 
wife  was  to  be  confined,  and  Joan  offered  her-  1429< 
self  as  nurse.3  Laxart  came  to  Domremy  accordingly, 
and  fetched  away  his  young  cousin.4  A  girl,  leaving  her 
home  for  a  few  days'  nursing,  does  not  make  much  stir 
even  in  a  small  village,  and  the  stories  of  the  neighbors 
who,  twenty -five  years  afterwards,  described  Joan's  depar- 
ture and  her  farewells  can  hardly  be  trusted.5  To  Joan 

1  P.  ii.  443.     P.  Ayroles,  Vraie  Jeanne    d'Arc,    ii.  319   et   seq., 
argues  that  Burey  le  Petit  is  not  Burey  en  Vaux,  but  Burey  la  Cote, 
now  a  smaller  village  about  five  miles  from  Domremy,  and  about 
nine  miles  from  Vaucouleurs.     On  the  whole,  however,  it  is  probable 
that  Laxart  lived  in  Burey  en  Vaux.     If  Joan  had  stayed  within  five 
miles  of  her  father's  house,  after  announcing  her  intention  of  visiting 
Charles  VII.,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  he  did  not  interfere. 

2  See  Labourasse,  Vouthon-haut  et  ses  seigneurs,  168  ;  Boucher  de 
Molandon,  Famille  de  J.  43. 

8  P.  ii.  428,  Ge"rardin. 

4  P.  ii.  444,  Laxart  ;  see  i.  53,  J.'s  test. 

5  See  P.  ii.  416,  Guillemette. 


38  JOAN   OP   ARC. 

herself,  however,  her  departure  must  have  had  the  intens- 
est  interest.  She  was  not  unmindful  of  her  duty  to  her 
father  and  mother,  and  in  all  other  matters  she  had  always 
obeyed  them ;  but  since  God  had  commanded  her  to  go  to 
the  Dauphin,  go  she  must.  Had  she  a  hundred  fathers 
and  a  hundred  mothers,  as  she  told  her  judges,  God's 
orders  must  be  obeyed.1  Afterwards  she  asked  and  re- 
ceived her  parents'  pardon  for  her  disobedience. 

Soon  after  her  arrival  at  Burey,  apparently,  the  child 
was  born.  In  a  week  or  thereabouts,  she  told  Laxart 
that  she  must  go  to  the  Dauphin  and  cause  him  to  be 
crowned;  for  which  purpose  she  must  visit  Vaucouleurs 
at  once,  and  get  an  escort  from  Baudricourt.2  Laxart's 
astonishment  may  be  imagined  when  he  heard  this  pro- 
posal from  a  young  girl  whom  he  had  probably  known 
from  a  child;  but  Joan  insisted.  Her  voices  not  only 
had  told  her  to  go  to  the  Dauphin,  but  had  assured  her 
that  she  should  reach  him,  and  her  faith  was  as  strong  as 
her  obedience  was  ready.  ,  She  said  nothing  to  Laxart 
about  her  visions,  though  £ne  told  him  that  she  was  ful- 
filling the  will  of  i  Gody  but  she  recalled  to  him  a  pro- 
phecy, well  knownj  the,*?ountry  round,  that  France  should 
be  ruined  by  a  woAiajt,  and  restored  by  a  maid  from  the 
borders  of  Lorraine/.3  The  woman,  as  most  people  were 
ready  to  agree,  \^is  Isabeau  of  Bavaria,  the  wretched 
mother  of  Charles]  VII.  Laxart,  a  commonplace  peas- 
ant, could  not  resist  the  enthusiasm  and  the  strong  will 
of  his  cousin;  he  soon  yielded,  and  they  left  Burey  to- 
gether on  their  errand.4 

1  P.  i.  129,  J.'s  test. 

2  P.  i.  53  ;  ii.  444. 
8  Ib. 

4  According  to  Joan,  P.  i.  53,  she  stayed  in  Burey  about  a  week  ; 
according  to  Laxart,  ii.  443,  about  six  weeks.  The  second  reckoning 
doubtless  includes  Joan's  whole  stay,  the  first  only  the  time  before 
her  first  visit  to  Vaucouleurs.  Even  so,  Laxart's  recollections,  more 
than  twenty  years  after  the  event,  probably  made  the  time  rather 
too  long. 


VAUCOULEUES.  39 

At  Vaucouleurs  (the  valley  of  color),  the  valley  of  the 
Meuse  is  a  little  narrower  than  at  Domremy,  and  the 
town,  beginning  on  the  meadows,  extended  part  way  up 
the  steep  slopes  of  the  low  hills.  Being  a  walled  town, 
it  was  closely  built  with  narrow  streets,  its  castle  in  its 
highest  quarter,  though  even  the  castle  was  so  commanded 
by  the  top  of  the  hill  up  whose  side  it  was  built  that  its 
defense  must  have  been  difficult.  In  the  town  lived 
about  three  thousand  people ;  it  was  held  by  Baudricourt 
with  a  small  body  of  soldiers,  wild  and  brutal,  like  the 
men  whose  deeds  have  been  described. 

Of  these  men  Kobert  of  Baudricourt  was  the  fit  cap- 
tain. He  seems  to  have  been  faithful  to  Charles  VII., 
though  it  is  impossible  to  know  how  far  his  course  was 
determined  by  mere  self-interest.  He  was  brave,  of 
course,  —  excepting  Charles  himself,  no  man  was  ever 
suspected  of  cowardice  in  those  days ;  he  was  shrewd  and 
shifty,  or  he  would  have  lost  Vaucouleurs  long  before. 
Greedy  and  unscrupulous,  he  lived  off  the  plunder  which 
he  gathered  from  the  peasants  of  the  country  and  from 
the  merchants  who  traveled  through  it.  He  was  by  one 
degree  more  respectable  than  a  roving  highwayman,  for 
he  was  married  to  a  rich  and  noble  widow,  and  was  fixed 
in  Vaucouleurs,  the  garrison  of  which  he  had  commanded 
for  twelve  years  or  more.1 

One  day,  early  in  January,  Joan  and  her  cousin  walked 
through  the  streets  of  the  town  and  went  up  to  see  the 
captain.  Laxart  was  a  common  country  laborer;  Joan  a 
strong,  well-made  girl,  dark-haired,  rather  pretty,  dressed 
in  coarse  red  stuff,  like  peasant  girls  of  her  condition.2 

1  Luce,  76.     For  Baudricourt,  see  Luce,  cl.,  clxii.  79,  161,  211, 
225,  306,  347,  359.     As  late  as  1450  his  men  were  plundering  the 
merchants  of  Metz.      Huguenin,  Chron.  Messines,  270,  283.      See, 
also,  Servais,  Annales  du  Barrois,i\.  131,  n.  ;  Lecoy,  Hist,  du  roi  Rene, 
i.  69,  77.     He  died  about  1454.     P.  i.  53,  n. 

2  P.  ii.  436,  Metz  ;  457,  Poulengy.     See  Vallet  de  Viriville,  Re- 
cherches  iconog.,  3,  n.     In  the  testimony  of  Bertrand  of   Poulengy, 


40  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

Once  in  Baudricourt's  presence,  she  told  him  earnestly 
that  she  must  go  to  help  Charles  VII.1  Laxart,  who 
had  come  to  believe  in  her,  also  urged  her  request. 

Baudricourt,  as  much  amused  as  astonished,  naturally 
gave  little  heed  to  what  she  said.  Sensual,  as  well  as 
brutal,  he  looked  at  her  to  see  if  she  would  satisfy  his 
lust  or  that  of  his  soldiers,  then,  changing  his  mind, 
he  told  Laxart  to  take  her/'baok  to  her  father's  house 
and  give  her  a  sound  -whipping>x.  With  this  sensible 
advice,  he  sent  them  away,  and  they  both  went  back  to 
Burey.2 

Nothing  more  discouraging,  nothing  more  humiliating 
could  have  happened,  yet  Joan's  faith  in  her  voices  was 
not  shaken.  They  had  told  her  before,  and  they  told  her 
still,  that  she  must  raise  the  siege  of  Orleans  and  crown 
the  Dauphin;  she  was  sure  that  they  spoke  the  truth. 
A  few  days  later  she  went  again  to  Vaucouleurs,  deter- 
mined to  stay  there  until  she  should  find  an  escort  to 

given  in  1456,  is  the  following  statement,  P.  ii.  456:  "Joan  the 
Maid  came  to  Vaucouleurs  about  Ascension,  as  it  seems  to  him 
(circa  Ascensionem  Domini,  ut  sibi  videtur),  and  then  he  saw  her 
speak  to  Robert  of  Baudricourt,"  etc.  If  Poulengy's  memory  can  be 
relied  upon,  and  if  he  was  correctly  reported,  Joan's  first  visit  to 
Vaucouleurs  was  in  the  spring  or  early  summer  of  1428.  This  visit, 
however,  rests  upon  the  single  word  "  Ascensionem,"  and  can  hardly 
be  reconciled  with  well-established  facts.  Laxart,  Metz,  and  Joan 
herself  make  no  mention  of  a  visit  in  1428,  and  the  tenor  of  their 
testimony  makes  it  highly  improbable  that  seven  or  eight  months 
elapsed  between  Joan's  first  visit  to  Vaucouleurs  and  her  accep- 
tance by  Baudricourt.  Moreover,  if  she  had  made  the  attempt  in 
1428,  she  must  have  gone  back  to  Domremy  afterwards,  of  which 
there  is  no  evidence,  and  her  father  would  not  have  allowed  her 
to  go  again  to  Laxart.  Poulengy  makes  Joan  say  that  "  her  Lord 
would  give  (the  Dauphin)  help  before  the  middle  of  Lent,"  — 
an  unlikely  remark  to  make  at  Ascension,  but  likely  enough  at 
Epiphany.  For  "  Ascensionem  "  I  should  read  "  Circumcisionem," 
January  1  ;  or  perhaps  Poulengy,  who  testified  in  French,  spoke  of 
the  Nativity  or  the  Baptism  of  our  Lord,  December  25  or  January  13. 
1  P.  i.  53,  J.'s  test.  ;  ii.  444,  Laxart.  2  P.  iv.  118,  205. 


VAUCOULEURS.  41 

Charles,  for  without  an  escort  she  knew  that  the  journey 
could  not  be  made.  This  time,  also,  Laxart  went  with 
her,  and  found  her  lodgings  with  Catherine  le  Royer, 
the  young  wife  of  a  respectable  citizen.  There  Joan 
stayed  a  week  or  more,  telling  every  one  she  met  that  God 
willed  her  to  go  to  the  noble  Dauphin,  saying  nothing  of 
her  visions,  but  repeating  the  old  proverb  which  she  had 
quoted  to  Laxart.  Most  of  the  time  she  sat  spinning  in 
the  house  with  her  hostess,  with  whom  she  also  went  to 
church,  and  there  confessed  to  Fournier,  curate  of  Vau- 
couleurs.  She  seemed  a  good,  simple,  sweet,  and  gentle 
girl,  Catherine  said.1 

Near  the  castle  was  a  royal  chapel,  where,  as  one  of 
the  little  choir  boys  long  afterwards  remembered,  Joan 
used  often  to  come  in  the  morning  to  hear  mass.  The 
hill  on  which  the  chapel  stood  was  so  steep  that,  on  its 
eastern  side,  the  crypt  below  the  chapel  was  open  to  the 
light;  and  there  also  the  boy  saw  Joan,  kneeling  before 
a  shrine  of  the  Virgin,  sometimes  with  her  head  bowed 
down,  and  again  with  her  face  raised  to  heaven.2 

Vaucouleurs  was  a  small  town,  and  Joan's  story  was 
soon  known  both  to  the  citizens  and  the  soldiers.  At 
her  first  coming  Baudricourt  had  given  her  little  thought. 
He  had  supposed  her  to  be  only  a  foolish  girl;  but  now 
he  began  to  wonder  if  she  were  not  possessed  by  a  spirit 
of  some  sort,  and  he  wished  to  find  out  if  this  spirit  were 
good  or  bad.  While  Joan  and  Catherine  were  at  home 
one  day,  he  walked  into  the  house,  accompanied  by  the 
curate,  John  Fournier.  The  priest  was  duly  robed,  and 
in  the  appointed  form  he  proceeded  to  exorcise  the  girl's 
familiar  spirit,  calling  upon  it  to  depart,  if  it  were  evil; 
to  draw  near,  if  it  were  good.  Joan  went  up  to  him 
at  once  and  reproached  him,  telling  him  that  he  had 

1  P.   ii.  445,  448,  Catherine   and  Henry  le  Royer.     Families  of 
Royer  still  live  in  Vancouleurs.     Chabannes,  Vierge  de  Lorraine,  30. 

2  P.  ii.  460,  Jean  le  Fumeux. 


42  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

heard  her  in  confession,  and  knew  what  sort  of  a  girl  she 
was.  The  two  men  then  went  away,  Baudricourt  unset- 
tled in  his  rnind,  but  still  unwilling  to  authorize  so  fool- 
ish an  expedition  as  that  which  Joan  proposed.1 

Not  long  afterwards  John  of  Metz,  a  hard-swearing 
and  lawless  soldier,2  stopped  at  Le  Royer's  house  out  of 
curiosity.  He  had  heard  of  Joan,  and  thought  he  would 
draw  her  out  by  mocking  her.  "My  dear,"  he  said, 
"what  are  you  doing  here?  Must  the  king  be  driven 
from  his  kingdom  and  must  we  all  turn  English?"  "I 
have  come  to  a  royal  city,"  Joan  answered,  "to  tell  Rob- 
ert of  Baudricourt  to  send  me  to  the  Dauphin,  but  he 
cares  not  for  me  or  for  my  words.  Nevertheless,  before 
mid-Lent,  I  must  be  with  the  Dauphin,  though  I  have  to 
wear  my  legs  down  to  my  knees.  No  one  in  the  world, 
neither  kings,  nor  dukes,  nor  king  of  Scotland's  daugh- 
ter,3 nor  any  one  else  can  recover  the  kingdom  of  France 
without  help  from  me,  though  I  would  rather  spin  by  my 
mother's  side,  since  this  is  not  my  calling.  But  I  must 
go  and  do  this  work,  for  my  Lord  wishes  me  to  do  it." 
The  answer  was  not  what  John  of  Metz  had  expected. 
"  Who  is  your  Lord  ?  "  he  asked  in  astonishment.  "  God," 
said  Joan.  Coarse,  reckless  soldier  that  he  was,  he 
grasped  her  hand  and  swore  on  his  honor  that,  with  God 
as  their  leader,  he  would  take  her  to  the  king.  He  asked 
her  when  she  wished  to  start.  "  Rather  now  than  to-mor- 
row, rather  to-morrow  than  afterwards,"  she  said.4 

1  P.  ii.  446,  Catherine  le  Royer. 

2  For  John  of  Metz,  see  Luce,  160,  171.     He  was  born  in  1398, 
and  ennobled  in  1441.     P.  v.  363. 

8  On  July  19,  1428,  an  agreement  had  been  made  between  Charles 
VII.  and  James  I.  of  Scotland  for  the  marriage  of  the  Dauphin, 
afterwards  Louis  XL,  to  Margaret,  James's  daughter.  At  the  same 
time  James  agreed  to  send  an  army  to  the  help  of  Charles.  See 
Beaucourt,  ii.  397.  The  marriage  took  place  June  25,  1436,  and 
Margaret  died  childless  August  16,  1445. 

4  P.  ii.  436,  Metz.     According  to  Metz,  J.  called  Charles  VII. 


VAUCOULEURS.  43 

It  was  impossible  to  start  at  once.  Baudricourt  had 
not  given  his  consent,  and  the  ardor  of  John  of  Metz  may 
have  cooled  a  little  when  he  came  to  think  over  what  he 
had  promised.  One  after  another,  however,  the  people 
of  Vaucouleurs  began  to  believe  in  Joan.  Bertrand  of 
Poulengy,  another  rude  soldier,  offered  to  join  John  of 
Metz  as  her  escort,1  and  James  Alain,  a  friend  of  Lax- 
art,  living  at  Vaucouleurs,  was  ready  to  help  her  as  best 
he  could.  Yet  Joan  was  impatient  of  the  delay,  knowing 
that  Orleans  could  not  hold  out  forever.  The  time  hung 
heavy  on  her  hands,  said  her  hostess,  as  if  she  had  been 
a  woman  with  child. 

When  they  found  that  Baudricourt  was  not  willing  to 
help  her,  Joan  and  her  friends  began  to  look  elsewhere, 
and  bethought  themselves  of  the  neighboring  duke  of 
Lorraine.  Joan  was  somewhat  cast  down,  not  through 
want  of  faith  in  her  divine  mission,  but  because  of  the 
obstacles  which  unbelieving  men  like  Baudricourt  were 
putting  in  her  way.  She  was  the  more  ready,  therefore, 
to  follow  the  advice  of  Laxart  and  the  others,  and  she  set 
out  from  Vaucouleurs  for  Nancy,  the  capital  of  Lorraine, 
to  ask  the  duke's  help.2 

"  king,"  but  the  word  was  probably  "  dauphin."     Metz's  error  in 
recollection  would  be  very  natural. 

1  For  Poulengy,  see  Luce,  143.     He  was  born  in  1392. 

2  This  visit  to  Nancy  is  not  altogether  easy  to  explain.     Luce, 
cxcviii.,  supposes  its  cause  to  have  been  the  curiosity  of  the  duke 
and  of  Rene"  of  Bar.     M.  Luce's  reasons  do  not  seem  cogent,  and, 
moreover,  it  is  quite  clear  that  Joan  would  not  have  gone  to  Nancy 
on   any  such   errand.     She  certainly  did  not  go  to  Lorraine  alto- 
gether  or   principally  to  make  the  pilgrimage  to  the  shrine  of  St. 
Nicholas  ;  the  pilgrimage  was  an  incident  of  the  journey.     It  seems 
to  me  more  likely  that  the  visit  was  planned  by  Laxart,  Alain,  and 
the  rest,  in  order  to  get  help  for  Joan's  journey  into  France.     The 
duke's  safe-conduct  was  got  somehow  or  other,  perhaps  by  playing 
upon  his  curiosity  without  Joan's  knowledge.     Joan  seems  to  have 
believed  that  he  had  bidden  her  to  come  to  him,  but  she  would  hardly 
have  gone  unless  she  had  expected  help  in  her  mission.     See  P.  i. 
53,  J.'s  test.  ;  ii.  391,  406,  437,  444,  447,  457. 


44  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

Charles  II.  of  Lorraine  was  a  prince  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire,  and  was  a  vassal  of  the  king  of  France 
for  but  a  small  part  of  his  great  possessions.  For  this 
small  part  he  had  sworn  allegiance  to  King  Henry,  and 
so  was  professedly  on  the  Anglo-Burgundian  side.  His 
sympathies,  however,  were  doubtful,  and  his  son-in-law 
and  heir  presumptive,  Rene  of  Anjou,  was  not  only  a 
prince  of  the  French  blood-royal,  but  also  the  brother-in- 
law  of  Charles  VII.  This  Rene,  duke  of  Bar,  was  Joan's 
feudal  overlord,  and  was  well  known  to  favor  the  Arma- 
gnac  party,  though  at  times  forced  to  come  to  terms  with 
the  English.  It  is  probable  that  Laxart  and  John  of 
Metz,  in  taking  Joan  to  Nancy,  reckoned  on  his  influ- 
ence, for  he  had  just  joined  his  father-in-law  in  that 
city.1  Duke  Charles  was  an  elderly  man,  already  sick  of 
a  mortal  disease,  but  living  in  such  open  immorality  as 
to  scandalize  his  people.2  He  seems  to  have  hoped  that 
Joan  would  work  some  miracle  for  his  cure,  and  so  he 
sent  her  a  safe-conduct  which  not  only  bound  him  to 
allow  her  to  return  to  Vaucouleurs,  but  also  gave  her 
some  protection  against  the  bands  of  soldiers  infesting 
the  country. 

Now  that  she  was  to  live  among  men,  Joan  perceived 
that  she  must  change  the  clothes  she  wore.  If  she  was  to 
be  safe  among  coarse  and  sensual  soldiers,  she  must  her- 
self dress  like  a  soldier.  It  needed  no  voice  from  heaven 
to  tell  her  this.  Indeed,  she  always  considered  her  reve- 
lations as  given  to  direct  her  in  extraordinary  affairs,  not 
as  supplying  the  need  in  ordinary  matters  of  good  com- 
mon sense.  They  had  told  her  to  go  to  Charles  VII.,  for 
instance,  to  raise  the  siege  of  Orleans,  and  afterwards  to 
crown  the  Dauphin  at  Rheims.  These  things  she  would 
never  have  thought  of  undertaking  except  by  divine  com- 
mand. Her  voices  had  told  her,  also,  to  go  to  Baudri- 

1  See  Luce,  cxcviii.     Rene"  was  born  in  1408,  and  married  in  1420. 

2  For  his  mistress,  Alison  du  May,  see  Badel,  J.  a  Nancy,  35. 


VAUCOULEUBS.  45 

court  and  ask  his  help;  but  this  only  as  a  means  to  an 
end,  so  that  when  he  would  not  send  her  to  the  Dauphin, 
she  tried  to  get  an  escort  elsewhere.  Never  did  she  sup- 
pose that  God  would  work  for  her  any  unnecessary  miracle, 
or  that  his  commands  would  excuse  her  from  exercising 
her  best  judgment  in  carrying  them  out.1 

Her  cousin  Laxart  and  John  of  Metz  lent  her  some  of 
their  clothes,  accordingly ; 2  and  toward  the  end  of  Janu- 

1  The  precise  reasons  which  made  Joan  put  on  men's  clothes  have 
been  much  discussed.     Probably  she  herself  could  not  have  explained 
the  matter  quite  definitely.     On  the  whole,  however,  it  seems  prob- 
able that  she  did  not  wear  them  in  direct  obedience  to  what  she  sup- 
posed to  be  a  specific  divine  command,  but  rather  treated  them  as 
means  necessary  to  carry  out  the  divine  commands.     Probably,  too, 
one  feeling  shaded  imperceptibly  into  the  other.     Though  she  was 
usually  quite  willing  to  assert  for  her  acts  a  specific  divine  command, 
she  was  evidently  unwilling  to  do  this  for  her  dress,  and,  when  asked 
about  it,  generally  gave  evasive   answers.     See  P.  i.  54,  96,  179, 
193,  221  et  seq.,  455.     Once  or  twice,  no  doubt,  she  was  understood 
by  her  examiners  to  say  that  God  had  bidden  her  wear  men's  clothes, 
but  probably  she  meant  only  to  assert  that  she  did  not  transgress 
God's  commands  by  wearing  them.     For  example,  on  February  27 
she  was  asked  if  He  had  bidden  her  wear  men's  clothes,  and  she 
replied  "  that  it  is  of  little  consequence   about  her  clothes,  and  a 
small  matter ;  she  has  not  put  oil  men's  clothes  by  the  counsel  of 
any  man  in  the  world  ;  she  has  not  changed  her  clothes  or  done  any- 
thing else  except  at  the  bidding  of  God  and  his  angels."     P.  i.  74. 
On  the  other  hand,  she  declared  herself  ready  to  wear  woman's  dress 
if  the  occasion  required,  e.  g.,  if  she  were  allowed  to  escape  in  it, 
i.  68,  191  ;  at  her  death,  i.  176  ;  if  she  were  transferred  to  a  suitable 
prison,  i.  456  ;  and,  perhaps,  to  receive  the  Eucharist,  i.  164.     At  her 
last  examination,  May  28,  when  asked  why  she  had  again  put  on 
men's  clothes,  she  did  not  plead  the  divine  command,  but  only  de- 
cency and  a  breach  of  the  conditions  upon  which  she  had  made  the 
first  change.     P.  i.  455.     Two  things  are  especially  noticeable  in  her 
testimony  regarding  this  as  well  as  many  other  matters  :  first,  her 
strong  desire  to  shield  every  one  else  from  blame,  and,  second,  a 
modesty  and  reticence  in  her  speech  which  were  unusual  in  her  time. 
It  is  in  evidence  that  she  enjoyed  bright  clothes,  but  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  suppose  that  she  preferred  man's  dress  for  its  own  sake. 

2  P.  ii.  437,  Metz  ;  444,  Laxart. 


46  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

ary,  they  started  for  Nancy,  passing  through  Toul  on 
their  way,  where  Joan  had  gone  before  to  get  rid  of  her 
troublesome  suitor.  There  John  of  Metz  left  them,  while 
Joan  with  Laxart  and  Alain  traveled  fifteen  miles  further 
to  Nancy.1 

When  Joan  saw  the  duke  of  Lorraine,  she  told  him, 
as  she  had  told  Baudricourt,  that  she  wished  to  go  to  the 
Dauphin.  The  duke,  however,  was  much  more  interested 
in  his  own  health  than  in  her  mission,  and  asked  her  to 
cure  him  of  his  disease.  She  answered  that  she  knew 
nothing  of  such  matters,  but  that  he  was  leading  an  evil 
life  and  never  would  be  cured  until  he  amended  it.  She 
begged  him  to  send  with  her  to  France  his  son-in-law 
Rene  and  a  body  of  soldiers,  and  she  promised  to  pray 
for  his  recovery.  Very  soon  she  found  out  that  he  had 
no  intention  of  helping  her,  and  therefore  she  said  little 
to  him  about  her  mission.  The  duke  gave  her  a  small 
sum  of  money  and  sent  her  away.2  Apparently  she  did 
not  see  Rene" ;  the  poor  young  man,  whose  duchy  of  Bar 
had  been  unmercifully  harried  by  both  sides,  despairing 
of  successful  resistance  to  the  English,  at  that  very  time 
was  preparing  to  swear  allegiance  to  Henry.3 

In  going  to  Nancy  or  in  coming  back,  Joan  visited  the 
February  famous  shrine  of  St.  Nicholas,  to  pray  there ;  4  but 
1429.  ner  journey  was  little  delayed,  and  she  reached 
Vaucouleurs  again  early  in  February.5  Though  she  had 

1  P.  ii.  447,  Catherine  le  Royer. 

2  P.  i.  54,  J.'s  test. ;  ii.  444,  Laxart ;  iii.  87,  Marg.  la  Touroulde. 
I  doubt  if  the  duke  gave  her  a  horse.     Had  he  done  so,  there  would 
have  been  no  need  of  buying  another.     The  story  rests  altogether 
upon  the  testimony  of  Morel,  ii.  391,  and  of  Martigny,  406.     Both 
spoke  only  from  hearsay. 

8  Luce,  239. 

4  P.   ii.   447,  Catherine   le   Royer  ;  457,   Poulengy.       See,   also, 
Badel,  /.  a  Nancy,  24. 

5  John  of  Metz  says  that  the  date  was  about  the  first  Sunday  in 
Lent,  February  13.     But  I  adopt  the  chronology  of  the  Clerk  of  La 


VAUCOULEURS.  47 

failed  to  persuade  the  duke,  yet  the  belief  in  her  mission 
was  now  grown  strong  in  Vaucouleurs,  and  John  of  Metz 
with  Bertrand  of  Poulengy  were  ready  to  conduct  her  to 
Charles.1 

Baudricourt's  consent  was  necessary,  however;  and  to 
him  Joan  again  appealed,  urging  him  to  send  her  for- 
ward lest  Orleans  should  fall  before  she  could  reach  it. 
As  all  other  means  of  persuasion  had  failed,  she  told  him 
at  this  time  something  of  her  visions  and  of  her  voices; 
just  what  she  said  we  do  not  know.2  He  was  not  con- 
vinced, but  he  decided  to  try  the  experiment,  and  yielded, 
though  with  doubt  and  reluctance.3 

Meantime,  the  people  of  Vaucouleurs,  joining  together, 
had  bought  for  Joan  men's  clothes  suited  to  her  journey 
and  to  an  appearance  at  court.  She  put  on  a  close-fitting 
black  vest,  to  which  were  fastened  trunks  and  long  stock- 
ings; over  the  vest  she  wore  a  short,  dark  gray  cloak; 
her  hat  was  black.  Her  dark  hair  was  cut  short  and 
round,  in  saucer  fashion,  as  men  then  wore  it.  Booted 
and  spurred,  with  a  sword  at  her  side,  mounted  on  a 
horse  which  Laxart  and  Alain  had  given  her,  but  for 
which  Baudricourt  afterwards  paid,  she  rode  out  of  the 

Rochelle  and  of  M.  de  Boismarmin,  which  fixes  Joan's  departure  from 
Vaucouleurs  at  or  about  February  12. 

1  P.  ii.  457,  Poulengy. 

2  P.  i.  128,  J.'s  test. 

8  The  reluctance  or  indifference  of  Baudricourt,  even  at  the  last, 
may  be  inferred  from  the  general  drift  of  the  testimony  of  Laxart, 
Metz,  Poulengy,  and  the  rest ;  also  from  his  farewell  speech  to  the 
expedition.  No  doubt  the  witnesses  at  the  second  trial  magnified 
their  own  share  in  helping  Joan  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  in  Joan's 
lifetime  it  is  probable  that  Baudricourt,  as  the  chief  man  of  Vau- 
couleurs and  the  neighborhood,  got  more  than  his  share  of  the 
credit  of  sending  her  to  court. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  letter  was  sent  by  Baudri- 
court to  the  king  before  that  which  accompanied  Joan  herself.  The 
fact  that  a  royal  messenger  happened  to  be  in  Vaucouleurs  at  the 
time  proves  nothing. 


48  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

French  Gate  on  the  afternoon  of  Saturday,  February 
February  12,  1429. 1  The  two  soldiers,  Metz  and  Pou- 
12, 1429.  lengy,  and  their  two  servants  escorted  her ;  with 
them  rode  Colet  of  Vienne,  a  royal  courier,  and  his 
servant,  in  all  six  armed  men  besides  Joan  herself.  The 
courier  seems  to  have  carried  a  letter  from  Baudri- 
court  to  the  king,  giving  some  account  of  Joan,  and 
especially  mentioning  something  which  Joan  had  said  to 
him,  which  was  afterwards  taken  as  a  miraculous  an- 
nouncement of  the  battle  of  the  Herrings,  fought  near 
Orleans  at  that  very  hour.2  Baudricourt,  who  knew  the 
character  of  her  escort,  made  the  men  swear  that  they 
would  guide  her  well  and  safely;  then,  as  the  party  rode 
away,  the  absurdity  of  the  expedition  again  struck  the 
grim  captain.  "Away  with  you,"  he  called  after  them, 
"come  what  may."3 

During  this  time,  so  far  as  is  known,  Joan's  father 
gave  no  sign.  Six  weeks  or  thereabouts  had  passed  since 
she  left  Domremy,  distant  from  Vaucouleurs  only  some 
thirteen  miles.  He  must  have  known  well  what  his 
daughter  was  doing,  and  the  mere  suspicion  that  she 
wished  to  do  these  things  had  once  made  him  furious. 
No  certain  explanation  of  his  silence  can  be  given ;  the 
most  probable  is  to  be  found  in  his  character  and  that  of 
the  rest  of  his  family.  Nothing  is  known  of  James  of 
Arc,  of  his  wife,  or  of  his  sons,  which  distinguishes  them 
from  other  peasants  of  like  condition.  Naturally,  the 
men  of  the  family  would  have  prevented  Joan's  depar- 
ture ;  but  after  she  had  gone,  they  were  either  too  angry 

1  P.  ii.  437,  445,  447,  457  ;  Luce,  ccx. ;  Rel.  ined.,  19.     See  p.  62, 
note  1,  infra. 

2  This  seems  to  me  the  most  reasonable  explanation.     The  evi- 
dence that  Joan  really  announced  the  defeat  to  Baudricourt  is  quite 
insufficient,  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  afterwards  believed 
she  had  done  so.     P.  iv.  125,  128,  206.     Baudricourt's  letter  would 
naturally  be  written  just  before  Joan's  departure. 

*  P.  i.  55,  J/s  test. 


VAUCOULEURS.  49 

or  too  indifferent  to  try  to  bring  her  back.  When  she 
became  famous,  two  of  her  brothers  were  quick  to  join 
her,  and  the  family  lived  off  her  reputation,  both  while 
she  was  alive  and  after  her  death. 

As  her  mother,  Isabel  may  have  been  a  little  nearer  to 
Joan  than  a  father  or  a  brother,  but,  as  a  woman,  she  was 
guided  entirely  by  her  husband  and  her  sons.  Strug- 
gling against  a  will  like  Joan's,  respectable  commonplace 
people  would  have  been  powerless,  and  this  they  may 
have  recognized. 

Joan  herself,  setting  out  from  Vaucouleurs,  did  not 
forget  her  home  and  her  people.  A  high-spirited,  brave 
girl,  sure  of  God's  direction,  must  have  been  excited  by 
the  thought  of  a  journey  like  that  before  Joan,  and 
doubtless  there  was  a  pleasure  in  the  excitement.  But 
Joan  had  not  the  personal  vanity  and  the  sense  of  impor- 
tance which  help  sustain  many  honest  and  devoted  en- 
thusiasts. Often  she  thought  of  Domremy,  and  wished  she 
were  spinning  at  her  mother's  side ;  then  her  voices  said 
to  her,  "Child  of  God,  go,  go." 


CHAPTER   V. 
CHINON. 

AT  Chinon  in  Touraine  Charles  VII.  kept  his  court. 
From  Vaucouleurs  to  Chinon  was  nearly  three 
12-23,  '  hundred  miles,  and  the  first  half  of  the  road  lay 
through  a  country  which  acknowledged  Henry 
as  king.  Joan  and  her  little  escort  had  nothing  to  fear, 
indeed,  from  the  country  people,  for  the  sympathy  of 
these  was  with  Charles  rather  than  with  Henry,  and,  be- 
sides, the  frightened  peasants  were  devoutly  thankful 
when  half  a  dozen  armed  men  were  willing  to  ride  for- 
ward and  mind  their  own  business.  But  through  the 
country  were  constantly  marching  detachments  of  Eng- 
lish soldiers,  and  bands  of  Burgundian  partisans  roamed 
hither  and  thither ;  wretched  outlaws  who  obeyed  neither 
king  infested  the  woods,  and  many  castles  were  held  by 
lords,  themselves  little  better  than  robbers,  who  were  in 
the  pay  of  English  or  Burgundians,  or  were  otherwise 
allied  to  the  Anglo-Burgundian  party.  Even  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood  of  Vaucouleurs  the  roads  were  far 
from  safe. 

Late  in  the  afternoon,  accordingly,  Joan  set  out,  and 
rode  on  far  into  the  night,  until  she  reached  the  Bene- 
dictine abbey  of  St.  Urbain,  on  the  river  Marne.  The 
abbot,  a  kinsman  of  Baudricourt,  very  likely  forewarned 
of  her  journey,  received  her  with  her  companions,  and 
lodged  them  until  morning.1 

The  next  day,  they  rode  forward  across  the  country. 

1  P.  i.  54,  J.'s  test. ;  ii.  457,  Poulengy  ;  Piraodan,  La  premiere  etape 
deJ. 


CHINON.  51 

Metz  and  Poulengy  were  hardened  soldiers,  yet  they  both 
feared  greatly  that  the  journey  never  would  be  accom- 
plished, and  they  were  not  ashamed  to  confess  their 
doubts  and  fears  to  Joan.  With  perfect  confidence  she 
assured  them  that  she  was  but  obeying  commands  laid 
upon  her,  and  that  for  years  God,  her  Lord,  and  her 
brothers  in  Paradise  had  told  her  she  must  fight  for  the 
salvation  of  the  kingdom.  As  the  days  passed,  the  sol- 
diers came  to  look  on  her  with  reverence  and  awe.  "I 
think  she  was  sent  from  God,  for  she  never  swore,"  said 
John  of  Metz,  who  himself  had  been  fined  in  court  for 
hard  and  foul  swearing.  Poulengy  told  how  her  words 
burned  in  him,  and  said  she  was  as  good  a  girl  as  if  she 
had  been  a  saint.  Often  they  avoided  the  inns  and 
slept  in  the  fields,  where  Metz  and  Poulengy,  both  young 
men,  lay  down  beside  her  without  thought  of  impurity. 
"Freely  she  gave  alms,"  said  Metz,  "and  many  times 
she  gave  me  money  to  give  for  God."1  The  sums  must 
have  been  small,  for  she  had  but  a  few  francs,  a  present 
from  the  duke  of  Lorraine,  perhaps,  or  from  the  peo- 
ple of  Vaucouleurs;  whatever  money  was  her  own  she 
usually  spent  in  this  way.  The  expense  of  the  journey 
was  borne  by  Metz  and  Poulengy,  who  were  afterwards 
repaid  out  of  the  royal  treasury.2 

As  they  seldom  stopped  at  an  inn  for  fear  of  detection, 
so  they  dared  not  go  to  church.  This  distressed  Joan, 
who  was  accustomed  to  hear  mass  every  day,  and  who, 
being  on  God's  errand,  wished  constantly  to  ask  his 
help.  "If  we  could  hear  mass,  we  should  do  well,"  she 
said;  but  when  they  told  her  it  was  too  dangerous,3  she 
did  not  insist.  After  they  had  been  out  four  or  five 
days,  they  came  to  Auxerre,  a  considerable  city,  be- 
longing to  the  duke  of  Burgundy.  Like  most  cities, 

1  P.  ii.  437,  Metz ;  458,  Pouleugy ;  and  see  iii.  15,  Bastard  ;  219, 
Aulon. 

8  P.  v.  257  ;  ii.  437.  8  P.  ii.  438,  Metz. 


52  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

it  had  a  wholesome  dread  of  all  bodies  of  troops,  and 
cared  little  about  the  politics  of  travelers  so  long  as  these 
behaved  themselves  quietly.1  The  little  party  mingled 
with  the  crowd,  and  Joan,  at  least,  heard  mass  in  the 
cathedral ; 2  then  they  stole  quietly  away  and  rode  west- 
ward to  Gien.3 

On  Friday  or  thereabouts  they  reached  Gien,  a  town 
on  the  Loire  about  forty  miles  above  Orleans,  holding  for 
Charles;  their  danger  was  now  almost  over,  and  Joan 
spoke  freely  of  her  errand.  The  news  spread  fast  that 
a  maid  was  come  from  the  borders  of  Lorraine  to  raise 
the  siege  of  Orleans  and  crown  the  Dauphin.  Every- 
where people  were  excited ;  in  spite  of  the  blockade,  men 
often  slipped  into  Orleans,  and  messengers  from  Gien 
soon  told  the  story  in  the  besieged  city.  Its  commander, 
the  famous  Bastard  of  Orleans,  afterwards  count  of 
Dunois,  at  once  sent  two  of  his  officers  to  Chinon, 
whither  he  knew  that  Joan  was  bound.4 

The  news  from  Orleans  which  Joan  learned  at  Gien 
was  very  discouraging.  On  the  day  of  her  departure 
from  Vaucouleurs  had  been  fought  the  battle  of  Rouvray, 
or  of  the  Herrings,  which  Baudricourt  believed  that  she 
had  announced  to  him.  It  had  been  a  disastrous  defeat 
for  the  garrison,  and  had  brought  both  citizens  and  sol- 
diers to  despair.  Many  captains  had  slipped  out  of  the 
city;  with  them  had  gone  its  bishop;  and  the  Bastard, 
himself  wounded,  was  left  there  almost  alone.5  No  time 
was  to  be  lost,  and  Joan  impatiently  rode  forward  across 
the  sandy  Sologne  and  the  flat  fertile  country  of  Tou- 
raine. 

1  See  Plancher,  Hist.  Bourgogne,  iv.,  Ixxxiv. 

2  P.  i.  54,  J.'s  test. 

3  The  story  of  the  attempt  made  by  her  escort  to  frighten  her  may 
be  true,  but  it  is  told  on  no  sufficient  authority.     See  P.  iii.  199, 
Lemaistre. 

4  P.  iii.  3,  Bastard  ;  21,  Ricarville.  6  See  chap.  vii. 


CHINON.  53 

The  anxiety  of  Poulengy  now  took  a  different  turn. 
Believe  in  Joan  as  he  might,  he  could  not  help  wonder- 
ing what  reception  they  would  meet  at  court.  Charles 
and  his  councilors  might  think  it  all  a  fool's  errand,  and 
he  might  be  left  with  his  money  spent,  the  laughing-stock 
of  his  comrades.  He  told  his  fears  to  Joan,  of  course; 
she  calmly  assured  him  that  he  need  not  be  afraid,  for 
the  Dauphin  would  receive  them  kindly  when  they  reached 
Chinon.1 

On  Monday  night  or  on  Tuesday  morning  they  came 
to  St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois,  a  little  village  about  fif- 
teen miles  from  Chinon.2  There  they  halted,  not  daring 
to  bring  Joan  to  court  until  leave  should  be  had  of  the 
king.  A  letter  was  sent  forward,  probably  by  Colet  of 
Vienne,  the  royal  messenger,  which  set  forth  that  Joan 
had  ridden  a  hundred  and  fifty  leagues  to  bring  help  to 
Charles,  and  that  she  bore  good  news  to  him.  Joan 
could  not  write  herself,  but  the  letter  was  read  over  to 
her,  and  part  of  it  she  dictated.  A  day  or  more  must 
pass  before  an  answer  could  come  back  from  Chinon,  and 
she  was  able  to  hear  three  masses  in  the  village  church, 
dedicated  to  St.  Catherine,  her  daily  visitor.3 

On  Wednesday  morning  a  message  came  from  Charles, 
and  they  rode  on  to  Chinon.  The  town  is  built  February 
upon  a  meadow  beside  the  river  Vienne ;  behind  23' 1429> 
it  rises  a  high  perpendicular  ledge  on  which  the  castle 
stood.  At  once  a  fortress  and  a  palace,  it  had  thick  walls, 
huge  towers,  and  deep  moats,  which  protected  great  build- 
ings but  just  constructed,  containing  lofty  rooms  lighted  by 

1  P.  ii.  457,  Poulengy ;  see  i.  56,  J.'s  test.    St.  Catherine  of  Fier- 
bois was  a  well-known  resort  of  pilgrims,  especially  of  those  who  had 
been  delivered  from  the  English.     See  Bourasse",  Miracles  de  Madame 
Ste.  Katherine. 

2  See  Caddy,  Footsteps  ofj.,  99  ;  De  Cougny,  Charles  VII.  etJ.  a 
Chinon,  19. 

8  P.  i.  75,  J.'s  test. 


54  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

large  mullioned  windows.  Joan  reached  the  town  about 
noon,  and  dined  at  an  inn ;  after  dinner  she  rode  around 
the  western  end  of  the  cliff,  through  a  gloomy  ravine, 
made  darker  by  the  high  walls  of  the  castle,  up  to  its 
eastern  entrance,  where  the  drawbridge  crossed  a  moat 
hewn  in  the  solid  rock.  She  was  led  past  the  modern 
buildings,  across  another  drawbridge,  into  the  strongest 
part  of  the  hold,  and  there  lodged  in  a  great  tower  called 
of  Coudray.1 

At  court  in  Chinon  were  many  of  the  royal  council- 
ors ;  among  them  La  Tremoille,  the  greedy  and  treacher- 
ous favorite  already  mentioned,  eager  to  get  estates  from 
Charles,  which  he  protected  from  attack  by  private 
treaty  with  the  English.  He  had  his  followers,  such  as 
Regnault  of  Chartres,  archbishop  of  Hheims  and  chan- 
cellor of  France,  a  selfish  and  worldly  prelate,  incapable 
of  finding  anything  unselfish  or  unworldly  in  others.2 
There  were  courtiers  of  the  less  ambitious  sort,  men  who 
cared  little  whether  Henry  or  Charles  was  king,  so  long 
as  a  court  was  maintained.  There  were  the  captains  of 
banditti,  who  professed  to  be  in  Charles's  service,  Gas- 
cons, and  Spaniards,  and  other  adventurers,  —  brave  men, 
who  seldom  sold  themselves  to  an  enemy,  but  were  always 
ready  to  put  the  king's  servants  to  ransom,  to  plunder 
and  torture  the  country  people,  and  to  hire  out  for  the 
private  wars  which  La  Tremoille,  the  constable,  and  other 
nominal  subjects  of  Charles  were  incessantly  carrying 
on.3  The  most  respectable  men  at  court  were  clerks  and 
the  like  officials,  men  who  remembered  better  times,  or 
at  least  had  better  traditions.  In  the  confusion  and  utter 

1  P.  i.  56,  J.'s  test. ;  iii.  66,  Coutes. 

2  He  was  born  in  1380,  died  in  1444.     See  Beaucourt,  ii.  90 ;  iii. 
276,  371. 

8  Les  La  Tremoille  pendant  cinq  siecles,  163-177  ;  Joubert,  Baron- 
nie  de  Craon.,  336,  338 ;  Quicherat,  Aperfus  nouveaux,  21,  25,  27  ; 
Beaucourt,  ii.  198. 


CHINON.  55 

dissolution  of  authority,  these  men  could  do  little.  In 
war  they  were  naturally  timid,  and  at  this  time  they  were 
discussing  whether  Charles  had  better  take  refuge  in 
Dauphiny  or  in  Languedoc,  when  Orleans  should  fall, 
and  the  barrier  of  the  Loire  should  be  forced  by  the 
English.1  The  Bastard,  Charles's  best  general,  was  at 
Orleans;  his  mother-in-law,  Yolande,  his  wisest  coun- 
selor, seems  to  have  been  at  Angers,  living  on  her  estates. 

Five  hundred  years  ago,  however  contemptible  person- 
ally a  king  might  be,  his  personality  was  important  to 
his  kingdom.  Seldom  has  a  king  lived  who  deserved 
greater  contempt  than  did  Charles  VII.  Weak  in  body 
and  mind,  idle,  lazy,  luxurious,  and  cowardly,  he  was 
naturally  the  puppet  of  his  worst  courtiers,  and  the 
despair  of  those  who  hoped  for  reform.2  "How  many 
times  have  poor  human  creatures  come  to  you  to  bewail 
the  grievous  extortion  practiced  upon  them !  Alas,  well 
might  they  cry,  '  Why  sleepest  thou,  O  Lord ! '  But  they 
could  arouse  neither  you  nor  those  about  you."  So  wrote 
an  excellent  official  who  helped  to  m'ake  illustrious  the 
later  years  of  the  reign.3 

The  child  of  a  crazy  father  and  a  licentious  mother, 
Charles,  as  has  been  said  already,  was  at  times  frivo- 
lous and  splendor-loving,  at  times  gloomy  and  solitary. 
"Never  a  king  lost  his  kingdom  so  gayly,"  was  a  saying 
fathered  upon  La  Hire,  a  fierce  Gascon  soldier,  and  the 
acknowledged  wit  of  France.4  Most  of  the  money  that 
the  king  could  raise  was  spent  in  luxurious  living  or 
given  to  favorites.  He  had  pledged  Chinon  itself  to  La 
Tremoille,  until  the  favorite  became  dissatisfied  with  the 

1  P.  iv.  127,  Journ.  Siege. 

2  In  speaking  of  the  fifteenth  century  the  word  "  reform  "  sounds 
misplaced  and  modern.     Yet  reform,  in  the  modern  sense  of  an  ill- 
defined  improvement  of  all  branches  of  the   government,  was  the 
incessant  demand  of  Frenchmen  between  1380  and  1450. 

3  Jean  Juvdnal  des  Ursins.     See  Beaucourt,  ii.  200. 

4  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  191. 


56  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

security,  as  being  of  too  little  value  and  too  likely  to  be 
taken  by  the  English.1  Charles's  extravagance  often 
left  him  wretchedly  poor,  and  so  the  story  went  about 
that  a  cobbler,  who  had  mended  one  of  his  boots  and  could 
not  get  payment,  tore  out  the  work  and  left  the  king  to 
walk  about  in  holes. 

"  La  Hire  and  Pothon  went  one  day 
To  see  him,  when  for  banquet  gay 
The  courtiers  did  themselves  regale 
With  chickens  two  and  a  sheep's  tail," 

sang  a  rhyming  chronicler  of  the  palace.2  At  times, 
again,  the  king  brooded  apart,  in  hopeless  prayer,  almost 
ready  to  abandon  the  contest  and  to  believe  himself  a 
bastard,  no  true  heir  to  the  throne. 

On  reaching  Chinon,  Joan  at  once  asked  to  see  the 
Dauphin,  but  this  his  advisers  would  not  allow.  Some  of 
them  went  to  her  and  inquired  her  errand.  At  first  she 
refused  to  speak  to  any  one  except  Charles;  but  when 
she  was  told  that  he  would  not  see  her  unless  she  first 
told  her  errand,  she  said  to  them  plainly  that  she  had 
two  comrnand^aid  upon  her  by  the  King  of  Heaven, 
one,  to  raVe  the/siege  of  Orleans,  the  other,  to  lead 
that  he  might  be  crowned  and  conse- 
crated thera^C  Meantime,  Metz  and  Poulengy  were  talk- 
ing every^heBe  about  her  goodness,  and  the  wronderful 
safety  they  ha^  enjoyed  during  the  long  journey  which 
they  had  taken  together.3 

Joan's  visitors  were  not  disinclined  to  believe  her  in- 
spired, but  it  seemed  possible  that  her  inspiration  might 
come  from  hell  rather  than  from  heaven.  For  Charles 
to  receive  a  witch  into  his  presence  would  endanger  his 
person,  and,  besides,  would  greatly  discredit  his  majesty.4 

1  Les  La  Tremoille,  177.     See  Beaucourt,  ii.  198. 

2  Martial  d'Auvergne.     See  Beaucourt,  ii.  195. 

8  P.  iii.  75,  Thibault ;  115,  Simon  Charles  ;  see  v.  100. 
4  P.  iv.  362,  Monstrelet. 


CHINON.  57 

Certain  clerks  and  priests,  accordingly,  men  expert  in 
discerning  good  spirits  from  bad,  were  appointed  to 
examine  Joan.  They  could  find  no  harm  in  her,  but 
yielded  to  her  simple  faith,  and  told  Charles  that,  as  she 
professed  to  bring  him  a  message  from  God,  at  least  he 
ought  to  hear  her.  He  yielded  reluctantly,  and  fixed 
a  time  for  the  audience,  some  two  or  three  days  after 
her  arrival.1 

It  was  evening,  and  the  great  hall  of  the  palace, 
lighted  by  dozens  of  torches,  was  filled  with  curious  cour- 
tiers and  with  the  royal  guard.  Louis  of  Bourbon,  count 
of  Vendome,  led  Joan  into  the  room,  dressed  in  black 
and  gray,  — the  man's  dress  she  had  worn  upon  her  jour- 
ney. She  had  been  praying,  and  beside  the  glare  of  the 
torches,  she  saw  the  light  which  usually  came  with  her 
voices.  As  she  entered,  Charles  drew  aside,  thinking  to 
puzzle  her  and  try  her  miraculous  powers,  but  by  the 
counsel  of  her  voices,  as  she  afterwards  said,  she  knew 
him,  and  made  to  him  a  dutiful  obeisance.  "Gentle 
Dauphin,"  she  began,  "I  have  come  to  you  on  a  message 
from  God,  to  bring  help  to  you  and,  to  your  kingdom." 
She  went  on  to  declare  more  particularly  that  she  was 
bidden  to  raise  the  siege  of  Orleans  and  to  conduct  him 
to  Rheims.2 

Charles  talked  with  her  a  little  while,  and  then  sent 
her  away,  back  to  the  tower.     There  she  was   Feb  23_ 
cared  for  by  one  William  Bellier,  an  officer  of  March  10, 

1429. 

the  castle,  and  by  his  wife,  a  matron  of  charac- 
ter and  piety.3    Again  Joan  was  impatient  of  delay,  and 
expected  to  be  sent  to  Orleans  at  once  with  an  army  of 
relief.     This  was  impossible  for  more  reasons  than  one. 
The  king's  counselors  could  not  yet  make  up  their  minds 

1  P.  iii.  115,  S.  Charles  ;  v.  118,  Bonlainvilliers. 

2  P.  i.  56,  57,  75,  J.'s  test.  ;  iii.  4,  Bastard  ;  103,  Pasquerel ;  116, 
S.  Charles. 

8  P.  iii.  17,  Gaucourt. 


58  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

to  trust  her  entirely,  and,  besides,  soldiers  and  money  were 
wholly  wanting.  A  month  before,  by  what  had  seemed 
at  court  a  superhuman  effort,  an  army  had  been  raised 
and  sent  to  Orleans.  It  had  been  defeated  at  Rouvray, 
and  had  since  disbanded;  no  intention  remained  of  re- 
lieving the  city,  though  there  was  still  some  idle  talk  of 
it.1 

Day  after  day  all  sorts  of  people  visited  Joan  to  test 
her  in  different  ways.  A  little  boy,  who  afterwards  be- 
came her  page,  and  who  then  lived  in  the  tower,  watched 
her  taken  back  and  forth  to  talk  with  the  king,  and  often 
saw  great  men  going  to  her  room.  Churchmen  tested 
her  orthodoxy;  captains  asked  her  about  her  knowledge 
of  war ;  and,  as  the  belief  of  the  day  made  her  supposed 
miraculous  power  rest  upon  her  virginity,  certain  noble 
dames  examined  her  to  discover  if  she  was  a  virgin. 
Impatient  as  she  was,  she  answered  them  all  so  aptly, 
and  was  so  gentle  and  simple,  that  all  who  met  her  grew 
to  believe  in  her.2 

Within  a  week  of  Joan's  coming  to  Chinon,  a  royal 
messenger  summoned  to  court  a  young  prince  of  the 
blood,  John,  duke  of  Alencon.3  Though  the  duke  was  a 
brave  and  warlike  young  man,  who  had  been  taken  pris- 
oner in  battle  when  only  fifteen  years  old,  yet  so  com- 
plete was  the  demoralization  of  the  French  that  he  was 
found  on  his  estates  hunting  quails,  and  quite  indifferent 
to  the  peril  of  the  kingdom.  When  the  messenger  told 
him  that  a  young  girl  had  come  to  the  king  declaring 
herself  sent  by  God  to  drive  out  the  English  and  raise 

1  See  P.  iv.  3,  Cagny. 

2  P.  iii.  66,  Coutes  ;  102,  Pasqnerel. 

3  Alencon  was  born  in  1409  ;  in  1415  he  succeeded  his  father,  who 
was   killed   at    Agincourt ;   in  1423  he  married   Joan,  daughter  of 
Charles  of  Orleans  ;  was  taken  prisoner  at  Verneuil  in  1424  ;  refused 
to  acknowledge  Henry  VI. ;  was  ransomed  in  1426.     See  Cagny, 
Chron.,  85  recto,  86  r.  ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  xxxii.  ;  Lobineau,  Hist. 
Bretagne,  i.  577,  ii.  1007  ;  Wavriii  du  Forestel,  ed.  Dupout,  i.  273. 


CHINON.  59 

the  siege  of  Orleans,  both  his  curiosity  and  chivalry  were 
aroused,  and  he\wen£  at  once  to  Chinon,  reaching  the 
court  on  the  nextvdiy.  He  found  Joan  speaking  with 
the  king,  who  was  still  uncertain  whether  to  trust  her  or 
not.  She  noticed  the  duke,  and  asked  who  he  was.  "It 
is  the  duke  of  Alencon,"  said  Charles.  "You  are  very 
welcome,"  said  Joan  to  the  duke.  "The  more  princes  of 
the  blood  are  here  together  the  better."  The  young  man 
was  charmed  by  her  bearing,  and  she  was  pleased  by  his 
open  face  and  his  courtesy ;  they  were  soon  fast  friends, 
and  the  "gentle  duke,"  the  "fair  duke,"  as  Joan  used  to 
call  him,  became  her  closest  comrade  in  arms.1 

The  council  had  come  to  no  decision,  the  churchmen 
still  visited  Joan,  and  Charles  still  talked  with  her  in  the 
vain  attempt  to  make  up  his  mind.  With  her  exalted 
ideas  of  his  divine  right,  and  with  the  notions  of  kingly 
power  that  belong  to  simple  people,  Joan  naturally  be- 
lieved that  she  had  but  to  win  him  over  in  order  to 
make  all  go  well.  To  others  she  said  as  little  as  possible 
about  her  mission,  but  to  him  she  spoke  freely,  regarding 
him  with  a  loyalty  which  never  wavered,  and  which  con- 
trasted strangely  with  her  shrewd  judgment  of  other  men. 
The  day  after  Alencon's  arrival  she  went  to  mass  with 
the  king,  who  was  regular  in  his  devotions.  Afterwards, 
he  led  her  into  a  chamber  of  the  castle,  having  with  him 
only  the  duke  and  La  Tremoille.  As  has  been  said, 
Joan  believed  in  his  divine  right  to  the  throne,  but  she 
believed  that  his  right  was  that  of  God's  vicegerent. 
She  therefore  begged  him  to  offer  his  kingdom  to  the 
King  of  Heaven,  and  she  assured  him  that  thereafter  the 
King  of  Heaven  would  do  for  him  as  He  had  done  for 
his  ancestors,  and  would  restore  him  to  his  former  estate. 

1  P.  iii.  91,  Alenc.on.  Joan  may  have  intended  to  refer  to  the 
quarrels  of  the  king's  kinsmen,  which  had  brought  on  the  civil  war 
and  the  English  invasion.  She  was  both  shrewd  and  frank  enough  to 
do  so. 


60  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

They  talked  until  dinner-time,  and  after  dinner  went 
together  to  ride  in  the  meadows  by  the  river.  Until  her 
journey  to  Lorraine  it  is  likely  that  Joan  had  never 
mounted  a  horse,  and  she  was  as  unfamiliar  with  sol- 
dierly exercise  as  any  farmer's  daughter  to-day.  So 
complete,  however,  was  her  trust  in  herself  as  God's  mes- 
senger, or  rather,  so  completely  did  she  forget  herself 
in  her  faith  in  the  message,  that  she  guided  her  horse 
and  wielded  her  lance  to  the  wonder  of  all  who  saw  her. 
The  young  duke  was  so  much  pleased  that  he  gave  her 
a  horse  on  the  spot.1 

In  spite  of  Joan's  increasing  influence  over  both 
churchmen  and  captains,  the  king  still  wavered,  and  La 
Tremoille  was  indifferent.  The  favorite  had  not  yet 
come  to  dread  her  power  and  to  intrigue  against  her  as 
he  did  a  few  months  later,  but  on  the  whole  he  was  dis- 
inclined to  action.  Joan  was  still  examined  and  cross- 
examined  by  the  king's  confessor  and  by  others.  She  an- 
swered discreetly  concerning  her  voices  and  the  message 
from  the  King  of  Heaven ;  but  she  told  Alencon,  as  they 
dined  together  one  day,  that  she  knew  more  than  she  had 
told  her  questioners.2  She  thought  it  strange  that  men 
could  doubt  that  which  was  so  plain  to  her.  The  little  boy 
who  lived  with  her  in  the  tower  often  saw  her  on  her 
knees  with  her  lips  moving,  as  if  in  prayer;  what  she 
said  he  could  not  hear,  but  he  saw  that  she  was  crying. 
She  herself  testified  that  she  prayed  to  God  and  to  her 
voices  to  turn  the  king's  heart,  and  to  deliver  her  from 
the  churchmen. 

Charles  VII.  was  a  weak  and  contemptible  man,  as 
has  been  said,  but  after  all  he  was  human.  Not  only 
did  Joan's  simple  faith  impress  him,  as  it  impressed  all 
others  who  saw  her,  but  her  entire  trust  in  him  gave  him 
for  the  moment  some  courage  and  self-reliance.  In  times 
of  despondency  he  had  doubted  if  his  blood  were  that  of 

1  P.  iii.  91  ;  iv.  486,  Windecken.  2  P.  iii.  92, 


CHINON.  61 

the  kings  of  France,  or  that  of  some  nameless  favorite  of 
his  mother,  a  doubt  not  unreasonable  when  the  licentious- 
ness of  Isabeau  is  considered  and  the  madness  of  Charles 
VI.  One  day  Joan  found  him  in  this  mood.  La  Tre- 
moille,  Alencon,  and  one  or  two  others  were  with  him 
also,  though  it  is  quite  possible  they  did  not  hear  what 
passed  between  Joan  and  Charles.  The  precise  words 
spoken  are  not  certainly  known,  but  Joan  said  to  Charles 
something  which  removed  the  doubts  of  the  wretched 
man,  and  seemed  to  him  an  oracle  sent  from  heaven  to 
answer  his  prayers.  A  courtier  noticed  that  his  face  was 
cheerful  as  he  came  from  the  interview,  and  there  was 
such  a  change  in  his  manner  that  Joan  gladly  believed  it 
to  be  the  work  of  God,  to  whom  she  had  prayed  for  the 
purpose.1 

Thus  far,  however,  she  had  gained  for  herself  only  a 
serious  hearing.  The  king's  confessor  found  her  ortho- 
doxy unimpeachable.  The  king  himself  believed  that  she 
had  wrought  a  miracle  in  reading  his  inmost  thoughts. 
She  had  fired  the  zeal  of  the  captains,  and  had  shamed 
them  into  some  hope  of  saving  France ;  she  had  charmed 
the  ladies  of  the  court  by  her  modesty ;  while  the  common 
people  were  telling  wonderful  stories  of  her  exploits  and 
adventures.2  To  bring  this  about  in  a  fortnight  was  no 
mean  exploit  for  a  girl  of  seventeen,  though  Joan,  be- 
lieving God  to  be  the  author  of  the  whole  work,  won- 
dered only  that  any  one  should  hesitate?  for  a  moment  to 
trust  his  messenger.  To  the  royal  councilors  doubt  was 
natural;  the  examination  of  Joan  at  Chinon,  however 
tedious  to  her,  was  by  them  considered  only  as  the  intro- 
duction tA  a  more  formal  investigation  which  was  to  be 

1  P.    iv.  258,  271,   280  ;   v.  133,   letter  of   Alain  Chartier.     See 
iii.  116,  S.  Charles;   and  Basin,  Hist.  Charles  VII.,  Lib.  II.  ch.  x. 
The  details  of  the  story  of  the  secret  revealed  to  Charles  are  doubt- 
less legendary,  but  there  was  probably  basis  for  it  in  fact. 

2  See  P.  iii.  203,  Seguin  ;  v.  115  et  seq.,  Boulainvilliera. 


62  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

made  at  Poitiers.  Thither  Joan  was  sent,  accordingly, 
about  March  10,  though  it  is  not  unlikely  that  some 
preparation  was  made  at  once  for  the  relief  of  Orleans.1 

1  See  P.  iv.  128,  Journ.  Siege. 

According  to  an  anonymous  chronicler,  P.  iv.  313,  Joan  reached 
Chinon  March  6.  The  entry  in  the  Chronique  de  Mont  St.  Michel, 
ed.  Luce,  i.  30,  is  merely  a  copy  of  the  statement  just  cited.  The 
Livre  Noir  of  La  Rochelle,  Quicherat,  Rel.  ined.  sur  J.,  19,  gives  the 
date  as  February  23  ;  and  I  agree  with  M.  de  Boismarmin  (A/em. 
sur  I'arrivee  de  J.  a  Chinon,  in  Bull.  Hist,  et  Philol.  du  comite  des  trav. 
hist,  et  sclent.,  1892,  p.  350),  that  the  earlier  date  is  the  more  probable. 

The  letter  to  the  English  was  written  from  Poitiers  on  March  22. 
If  Joan  did  not  reach  Chinon  until  March  6,  it  is  difficult  to  find  suf- 
ficient time  for  the  events  which  undoubtedly  took  place  between  her 
arrival  at  that  place  and  the  writing  of  the  letter.  She  could  hardly 
have  passed  less  than  ten  or  twelve  days  at  Chinon.  It  was  two  days 
before  she  saw  the  king  [see  P.  iii.  4,  Bastard  ;  115,  Simon 
Charles],  and  a  day  or  two  more  before  she  saw  the  duke  of  Alen- 
c.on.  On  the  day  after  his  arrival  occurred  the  ride  through  the 
meadows  by  the  river.  Thereafter  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
examine  her.  The  examination  took  place,  a  favorable  report  was 
made,  and  the  king  and  Joan  started  for  Poitiers.  For  the  length  of 
Joan's  stay  at  Chinon,  see,  also,  P.  iii.  66,  Coutes.  If  she  arrived 
at  Chinon  on  March  6,  therefore,  she  could  not  well  have  arrived  at 
Poitiers  before  March  19  or  20,  and,  while  the  testimony  is  not  posi- 
tive, yet  its  tendency  indicates  decidedly  that  more  than  two  or  three 
days  elapsed  between  her  arrival  and  the  dispatch  of  the  letter  to 
the  English  on  March  22.  Moreover,  there  is  an  entry  in  the  MS. 
Gaighieres,  286,  f.  2,  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  stating  that 
Charles  was  at  Poitiers  March  11.  The  entry  occurs  in  a  list  of 
places  and  dates  confusedly  thrown  together  to  show  the  itinerary  of 
the  kings  of  France.  The  list  is  of  considerable  age,  but  no  au- 
thorities are  given,  and  some  of  the  entries  are  manifestly  incorrect. 
For  example,  on  April  9,  Charles  is  said  to  have  been  at  Beaugency, 
which  place  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  English  until  June  18. 
Still,  though  the  authority  of  the  MS.  Gaignieres  is  not  <!o  be  trusted 
implicitly,  yet  it  is  entitled  to  some  weight,  and  it  agrees  perfectly 
with  the  natural  order  of  things,  supposing  that  Joan  reached  Chi- 
non on  February  23.  This  would  give  a  fortnight  or  thereabouts 
for  the  events  which  took  place  at  Chinon,  and  rather  more  than 
ten  days  for  the  examination  at  Poitiers  and  the  other  events  which 
happened  there  before  the  letter  was  written.  Again,  if  Joan  reached 


CHINON.  63 

Chinon  on  February  23,  she  must  have  left  Vaucouleurs  February 
12  or  13.  On  February  12  was  fought  the  battle  of  the  Herrings, 
and  Baudricourt  is  said  to  have  written  a  letter,  mentioning  Joan's 
announcement  of  the  battle  at  the  very  hour  when  the  battle  took 
place.  Now  the  letter  which  Baudricourt  sent  off  with  Joan  was 
probably  written  very  near  the  moment  of  her  departure.  If  she 
left  Vaucouleurs  late  in  the  afternoon  of  February  12,  Baudricourt's 
letter  would  probably  have  been  written  at  or  about  noon  on  that 
day,  the  very  moment  when  the  battle  was  taking  place.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  she  did  not  reach  Chinon  until  March  6,  she  did  not 
leave  Vaucouleurs  until  February  23,  in  which  case,  news  of  the 
battle  of  the  Herrings  would  have  reached  Baudricourt  before  her 
departure,  of  which  the  contrary  is  implied  in  the  Journ.  Siege,  P. 
iv.  128.  For  the  full  discussion  of  this  not  very  important  matter, 
see  the  monograph  of  M.  de  Boismariuiu,  cited  above. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

POITIERS. 

• 

FOE  eighteen  years,  from  1418  to  1436,  loyal  France 
Mar.  10-  had  no  capital.  Paris  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
22, 1429.  English,  and  among  the  cities  faithful  to  Charles 
VII.  there  was  none  important  enough  to  take  its  place. 
The  king  lived  much  at  Bourges,  —  which  still  shows  traces 
of  the  royal  residence,  —  sometimes  at  Tours,  of tener  in 
his  castellated  palaces  of  Chinon  and  Mehun  sur  Yevre. 
To  maintain  the  judicial  system,  however,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  court  of  appeal  should  have  a  safe  place  for  its 
sittings,  and  in  September,  1418,  some  four  months  after 
the  fall  of  Paris,  the  Armagnacs  established  at  Poitiers 
a  parliament  or  court,  to  take  the  place  of  that  which 
still  sat  in  Paris,  but  now  served  the  interests  of  the 
Anglo-Burgundian  party.  To  this  court  were  summoned 
several  excellent  officials,  learned  in  the  law,  who  had 
followed  the  Dauphin  in  his  flight.  The  sittings  of  the 
court  and  the  presence  of  these  men  drew  to  Poitiers  not 
only  the  lawyers  of  the  kingdom,  both  ecclesiastical  and 
lay,  but  so  many  learned  men  besides  that  in  1431,  only 
two  years  after  Joan's  visit,  a  university  was  founded 
there,  with  faculties  of  theology,  law,  medicine,  and  arts. 
In  this  city,  if  anywhere  in  Charles's  dominions,  it 
seemed  probable  that  men  might  be  found  able  to  dis- 
cern between  good  spirits  and  bad.1 

1  See  Beaucourt,  i.  362;  ii.  571 ;  Neuville,  in  Revue  Hist.,  t.  vi.  1, 272; 
Pe'chenard,  Jean  Juvenal  des  Ursins,  79  ;  Flandin,  Parlement  de  Poi- 
tiers sous  Charles  VII. ;  Bouchet,  Annales  d'Aquitaine,  242,  and  Uni- 
versite  de  la  mile  de  Poitiers,  bound  in  the  same  volume.  Doubtless 


POITIERS.  65 

To  Poitiers  Joan  went,  accordingly,  the  king  with  her, 
and  some  of  his  councilors.1  The  distance  is  about  fifty 
miles,  and  the  ride  probably  took  two  days.  On  her 
arrival  in  the  city,  she  was  lodged  at  the  house  of  the 
attorney-general,  John  Rabateau,  a  man  of  wealth  and 
distinction,  married  to  a  discreet  wife.  In  the  house  was 
a  little  chapel,  where  Joan  went  to  pray,  both  after  her 
meals  and  sometimes  in  the  night.2 

A  meeting  of  the  royal  council  was  soon  held,  over 
which  presided  the  archbishop  of  Ilheims,  then  chancellor 
of  France.  The  council  appointed^  committee  of  inves- 
tigation, which  included  several  professors  of  theology, 
an  abbot,  a  canon  of  Poitiers,  and\one  or  two  friars.3 
Escorted  by  a  squire,  this  committee  went  to  visit  Joan 
at  Rabateau's  house.  When  they  entered,  she  came  to 
meet  them;  but  the  sight  of  the  priests  irritated  her,  as 
she  recollected  the  prolonged  examinations  to  which  the 
clergy  had  subjected  her  at  Chinon,  and  so  she  went  up 
to  the  squire,  whose  military  dress  pleased  her,  clapped 
him  on  the  shoulder,  and  told  him  that  she  wished  she 
had  more  men  of  his  way  of  thinking.  The  abbot  gravely 
informed  her  that  the  committee  had  been  sent  to  her 
from  the  king.  "  I  am  quite  ready  to  believe  that  you 

the  university,  also,  was  intended  to  rival  that  in  Paris.  When  the 
English  lost  Paris  in  1436,  they  in  turn  established  a  university  at 
Caen. 

1  John  1'Arehier  was  then  mayor.     See  list  of  mayors  in  Bouchet, 
p.  61.     It  is  almost  certain  that  Charles  went  with  Joan  to  Poitiers. 
Archives   de  la    Vienne,  Memoires    des  antiquites  de  V Quest,  xv.  82; 
Lettres  orig.  fran.  Gaignieres,  896,  i.  f.  25  ;  P.  iii.  209,  210,  Aulon; 
Rel.  ined.  sur  J.,  19.      One  or  two  persons  say  that  Charles  sent 
Joan  to  Poitiers  (Garivel,  Barbin,  Simon  Charles),  but  such  doubt- 
ful testimony  cannot  outweigh  the  strong  evidence  of  his  presence 
in  Poitiers.      Perhaps  Joan   did    not   travel   in  company  with   the 
king. 

2  P.   iii.   19,   Garivel ;   74,   Thibault ;   82,  Barbin.      See   Ledain, 
J.  a  Poitiers,  and  P.  iii.  209. 

8  See  Raguenet  de  St.  Albin,  Lesjuges  de  J.  a  Poitiers. 


66  JOAN   OF   AEC. 

have  been  sent  to  examine  me,"  she  answered.  "I  know 
neither  A  nor  B." J 

Naturally,  Joan's  impatience  did  not  deter  the  com- 
mittee from  proceeding  to  the  investigation,  and  they 
began  to  ply  her  with  questions.  Some  one,  apparently 
the  abbot,  asked  her  why  she  had  come  to  court.  "I  am 
come  from  the  King  of  Heaven,"  Joan  answered,  "to 
raise  the  siege  of  Orleans,  and  to  lead  the  Dauphin  to 
Rheims,  for  his  coronation  and  consecration."  "But 
what  made  you  think  of  coming?  "  asked  a  professor  of 
theology.  Joan  disliked  to  talk  of  her  visions,  as  has 
been  said,  but  she  saw  the  need  of  some  explanation,  and 
she  told  them  how  her  voices  had  bidden  her  go  to 
France,  nothing  doubting,  since  God  had  great  pity  on 
its  people.  "You  tell  us,"  said  William  Aymery,  an- 
other professor,  "that  God  wishes  to  free  the  people  of 
France  from  their  distress.  If  He  wishes  to  free  them, 
there  is  no  need  of  the  soldiers  you  ask  for."  "In  God's 
name,"  said  Joan,  "the  men-at-arms  will  fight,  and  God 
will  give  the  victory."  With  which  reply  Master  Wil- 
liam himself  was  content,  as  one  of  his  colleagues  testi- 
fied. 

This  colleague,  Seguin,  a  Carmelite  friar  of  learning 
and  repute,2  next  took  his  turn.  He  was  a  native  of 
Limoges,  speaking  the  dialect  of  his  province.  Out  of 
curiosity,  or  merely  for  the  sake  of  cross-examination,  he 
asked  Joan  in  what  language  her  voices  spoke  to  her. 
"In  a  better  than  yours,"  said  the  girl,  exasperated  by 
what  she  thought  a  frivolous  question.  "Do  you  believe 
in  God?"  asked  the  undaunted  friar.  "Better  than  you 
do,"  Joan  answered,  this  time  in  all  seriousness.  Se- 
guin then  told  her  that  God  did  not  wish  them  to  trust 
her  without  receiving  some  sign  or  credential,  and  he 
added  that  they  could  not  advise  the  king  to  risk  his  sol- 

1  P.  iii.  19,  Garivel  ;  74,  Thibault  ;  83,  Barbin  ;  203,  Seguin. 

2  See  Universite  de  la  ville  de  Poitiers,  1. 


POITIERS.  67 

diers  on  the  strength  of  her  simple  word.  "In  God's 
name,  I  have  not  come  to  show  signs  in  Poitiers;  but 
lead  me  to  Orleans  and  I  will  show  you  the  signs  for 
which  I  am  sent."  The  severe  Carmelite  friar  was  frank 
enough  to  tell  this  tale  of  his  own  discomfiture. 

The  sober  churchmen  listened  as  Joan  went  on  to  tell 
them  what  was  to  happen  in  France.  The  English  should 
be  overthrown  and  Orleans  should  be  relieved ;  the  Dauphin 
should  be  crowned  at  Rheims ;  Paris  should  return  to  its 
rightful  lord;  and  the  captive  duke  of  Orleans  should  be 
brought  back  from  England.  First  of  all,  the  English 
must  be  summoned  to  withdraw,  and,  turning  to  a  pro- 
fessor who  stood  by,  she  bade  him  write  in  the  name 
of  the  King  of  Heaven  to  Suffolk  and  the  other  Eng- 
lish captains  before  Orleans.  The  committee  had  heard 
enough,  and  went  back  to  the  council ;  it  is  likely  that 
Joan  went  into  Rabateau's  chapel  to  pray.1 

She  had  no  great  reason  to  complain  of  the  delay  of 
her  examiners  at  Poitiers,  though  some  further  inquiry  was 
made  into  her  character.  There  were  men  at  court  dis- 
gusted with  the  cowardice  and  treachery  of  La  Tremoille, 
and  not  unwilling  to  fight  for  France ;  the  energy  of  these 
men  was  roused  by  Joan's  enthusiasm.  Charles's  mother- 
in-law,  Yolande,2  was  come  to  Poitiers.  She  examined 
Joan  herself,  and  made  her  report  to  the  council,  which 
had  met  again  to  consider  what  advice  should  be  given  to 
the  king.3  There  was  some  discussion;  the  members  of 
the  committee  told  the  story  of  their  interview  with  Joan, 
saying  that  she  had  answered  as  if  she  were  a  clerk,  and 
asserting  their  own  belief  that  she  was  sent  from  God. 

1  P.  iii.  74,  Thibault ;  205,  Seguin.     See  P.  iv.  211,  Chron.  Puc. 

2  She  had  already  advanced  money  to  help  the  defense  of  Orleans. 
Loiselenr,  Compte  des  depenses,  179. 

8  P.  iii.  102,  Pasquerel  ;  209,  Aulon.  See  P.  iii.  93,  where  Alengon 
says  that  he  was  sent  to  Yolande,  but  does  not  say  to  what  place. 
She  furnished  provisions  for  the  army. 


68  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

John  Erault  reminded  the  council  of  a  certain  Mary  of 
Avignon,  who  had  come  to  Charles  VI.  and  had  foretold 
the  sufferings  of  the  kingdom.  She  had  had  visions 
touching  the  desolation  of  France,  and  in  them  had  seen 
armor  coming  to  her,  whereat  she  wept,  fearing  that  she 
was  intended  to  serve  as  a  soldier.  It  had  been  told  her, 
however,  that  the  arms  were  for  a  virgin  who  should 
come  after  her,  and  should  save  France  from  its  enemies. 
This  virgin  Erault  believed  Joan  to  be.1 

How  much  weight  the  council  gave  to  the  prophecies 
of  Mary  of  Avignon  cannot  be  determined.  Joan's  own 
words  and  bearing  and  the  shame  these  had  roused  in 
some  of  the  councilors  were  probably  more  efficient 
causes  of  action.  Within  a  few  days  of  her  arrival  at 
Poitiers,  the  council  advised  the  king  to  grant  her  re- 
quest, and  to  send  her  with  men  and  provisions  to  Or- 
leans. The  case  of  the  kingdom  was  desperate,  they 
said,  and  no  chance  should  be  neglected.  That  they 
really  put  much  confidence  in  Joan  is  unlikely;  that  a 
girl  should  inspire  them  with  any  confidence  at  all  doubt- 
less seemed  marvelous  to  all  but  Joan  herself.2 

Some  weeks  must  pass  before  an  army  could  be  assem- 
bled, but  one  thing  Joan  insisted  upon  doing  at  once. 
She  had  been  sent  by  God  to  save  France,  but  she  was 
singularly  free  from  any  hatred  of  the  English,  and  so 
great  was  her  faith  in  her  mission,  so  complete  seemed 
her  triumph  over  the  incredulity  of  courtiers  and  church- 
Mar.  22,  men,  that  she  hoped  that  even  the  English  would 
heed  her,  and  at  her  bidding  would  leave  the 
country.  On  March  22  she  caused  the  following  letter 
to  be  written  and  sent  to  them :  — 

JESUS  MAKIA 

King  of  England,  and  you,  duke  of  Bedford,  who  style  your- 
self regent  of  France,  you  William  de  la  Pole,  earl  of  Suffolk, 

1  P.  iii.  83,  Barbiu. 

2  See  P.  iii.  83,  Barbiii ;  93,  Alen^on  ;  102,  Pasquerel ;  205,  Seguin. 


POITIERS.  69 

John,  Lord  Talbot,  and  Thomas,  Lord  Scales,  who  style  your- 
self lieutenants  of  the  said  duke  of  Bedford,  give  heed  to 
the  King  of  Heaven,  and  yield  up  to  the  Maid,  sent  for  that 
purpose  by  God,  the  King  of  Heaven,  the  keys  of  all  the  good 
cities  which  you  have  taken  and  outraged  in  France.  She  is 
come  from  God  to  rescue  the  blood  royal.  She  is  ready  to 
make  peace  if  you  will  heed  her  and  depart  from  France  and 
yield  up  what  you  hold  in  it.  And  do  you,  archers,  soldiers, 
gentlemen,  and  others  who  are  before  Orleans,  go  into  your  own 
country,  at  God's  command ;  but  if  you  do  not,  look  to  hear 
news  of  the  Maid,  who  will  shortly  go  to  see  you  to  your  great 
hurt.  King  of  England,  if  you  will  not  do  this,  I  am  the  head 
of  the  army,  and  wherever  I  meet  your  people  in  France  I  will 
make  them  flee,  whether  they  will  or  no,  and,  if  they  will  not 
obey,  I  will  kill  them  all.  I  am  sent  from  God,  the  King  of 
Heaven,  body  for  body,  to  drive  you  out  of  all  France ;  but  if 
the  soldiers  obey,  I  will  have  mercy  on  them.  Be  not  obstinate, 
therefore,  for  you  shall  not  hold  the  kingdom  of  France  from  God, 
the  King  of  Heaven,  son  of  St.  Mary ;  from  him  shall  Charles 
hold  it,  the  true  heir,  for  God,  the  King  of  Heaven,  wills  it  so, 
and  so  has  it  been  revealed  by  the  Maid,1  who  will  enter  Paris 
with  a  good  company.  If  you  do  not  heed  the  word  of  God  and 
the  Maid,  in  whatever  place  we  find  you,  we  will  put  you  to 
a  greater  rout  than  has  been  known  in  France  for  a  hundred 
years,  if  you  will  not  believe.  And  be  sure  that  the  King  of 
Heaven  will  send  greater  strength  to  the  Maid  and  to  her  good 
soldiers  than  you  can  bring  with  all  your  might,  and  by  heavy 
buffets  you  shall  discover  who  has  the  best  right  from  the  God 
of  Heaven.  The  Maid  begs  you  and  bids  you,  duke  of  Bedford, 
not  to  bring  ruin  on  yourself.  If  you  will  heed  her,  you  may 
come  in  her  company  to  a  place  where  the  French  will  do  the 
bravest  deed  ever  done  for  Christendom.  Answer,  then,  if  you 
will  give  peace  to  the  city  of  Orleans,  and,  if  you  do  not,  ex- 
pect shortly  grievous  damage.  Written  this  Tuesday  in  Holy 
Week.2 

1  See  p.  59,  and  the  request  which  Joan  made  that  Charles  should 
surrender  the  kingdom  to  God  and  hold  it  from  Him  as  his  vicege- 
rent. 

2  The  copies  of  this  letter  differ  slightly.     That  produced  at  J.'s 


70  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Joan  was  utterly  illiterate,  of  course ;  it  is  doubtful  if 
she  could  sign  her  name  unaided ;  the  letter  was  written 
for  her  by  some  clerk,  and  may  have  been  somewhat 
revised  by  the  council.1  That  the  substance  of  it  is  hers, 
however,  there  can  be  no  doubt;  it  is  full  of  her  charac- 
teristic expressions,  and  of  the  repetitions  used  by  illiter- 
ate people  when  most  in  earnest.  Even  the  reference 
made  in  the  last  sentence  but  one  to  a  crusade  against 
the  Saracens  may  have  been  her  own,  for  such  a  cru- 
sade was  then  the  final  wish  of  all  Christendom.2  If 
the  phraseology  seems  unduly  boastful  and  self-confident, 
such  phraseology,  also,  is  characteristic,  though  her  boast- 
ing was  really  in  God,  and  her  self-confidence  in  God's 
messenger.  When  she  spoke  of  the  peasant  girl,  Joan 
of  Arc,  it  was  with  reticence  and  modesty.  The  answer 
which  the  English  made  to  her  summons  will  appear  in 
due  time.3 

This  letter  of  Joan  makes  plain  another  matter.  Lest 
she  should  seem  to  have  failed  in  any  part  of  her  mission, 
it  has  sometimes  been  urged  that  this  mission  was  con- 
fined to  the  relief  of  Orleans  and  the  consecration  of 
Charles,  and  that  at  his  coronation  her  divine  mission 
was  concluded.  The  letter  shows,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  real  end  of  her  mission,  as  she  always  conceived  it, 
was  the  rescue  of  France,  to  compass  which  end  Orleans 
and  Eheims  were  but  the  means.  Her  expeditions  thither 
differed  from  her  other  acts  only  in  this,  that  the  for- 
mer were  means  divinely  appointed,  commanded  by  her 
voices,  while  the  latter  were  means  humanly  chosen  to 
accomplish  a  divinely  appointed  end.  We  shall  consider 

trial,  P.  i.  240,  which  closely  agrees  with  another  from  a  French 
source,  printed  P.  v.  96,  is  probably  more  accurate  than  those  given 
by  the  chroniclers,  P.  iv.  139,  215,  306. 

1  P.  i.  55,  84,  J.'s  test.  2  See  P.  v.  126. 

8  See  the  account  of  Joan  brought  about  this  time  by  tinkers  from 
Doinremy  to  Rouen.  P.  iii.  192,  Moreau. 


POITIERS.  71 

later  how  she  regarded  her  mission  after  Charles's  conse- 
cration, but  the  distinction  above  mentioned  should  always 
be  borne  clearly  in  mind. 

Although  the  council  had  decided   to   send  Joan   to 
Orleans,  a  full  month  must  pass  before  men  and   April, 
provisions  could  be  gathered  for  the  expedition.    1429- 
She  knew  the  need  of  both,  and  was  no  longer  impatient ; 
a  few  days  were  passed  in  Poitiers,  and  then  she  returned 
with  the  court  to  Chinon.     Sixty-five  years  afterwards, 
there  lived  in  Poitiers  a  very  old  man,  who  still  liked  to 
tell  how  she  rode  from  the  city  in  full  armor,  and  who 
pointed  out  the  stone  from  which  she  had  mounted  her 
horse.1 

While  waiting  for  the  troops  to  gather,  Joan  went 
from  Chinon  to  St.  Florent  near  Saumur,  the  seat  of  her 
friend,  the  duke  of  Alen(jon.  There  his  mother  and  his 
wife  received  the  young  girl;  and  "God  knows,"  wrote 
the  chronicler  of  the  family,  "the  cheer  they  made  her 
during  the  three  or  four  days  she  spent  in  the  place." 
His  wife,  indeed,  Joan  of  Orleans,  had  a  peculiar  inter- 
est in  the  purposes  of  Joan  of  Arc,  for  she  was  the 
daughter  of  Charles,  duke  of  Orleans,  then  nearly  fifteen 
years  a  prisoner  in  England,  whose  city  the  .English  were 
besieging.  The  duchess  was  but  a  girl  herself,2  and  as 
her  husband  prepared  again  to  take  up  arms,  she  feared 
for  his  safety,  remembering  that  for  several  years  of  her 
young  married  life  he,  too,  had  been  a  prisoner  of  the 
English.  She  told  her  fears  to  Joan  of  Arc,  accordingly; 
how  long  his  captivity  had  lasted,  how  hard  it  had  been 
to  raise  the  money  for  his  ransom,  and  how  she  had 

1  Bouchet,  Ann.  Aquitaine,  246.     Apparently,  Charles  left  Poitiers 
March  23  or  24.     Lettres  orig.  /ran.  Gaignieres,  896,  i.  f.  25  ;  MS. 
Gaignieres,  286,  f.  156.     For  {he  rest,  see  Bouchet,  Ann.  Aq.,  246; 
P.  iv.  211,  Chron.  Puc.     A  tower  in  Poitiers  was  named  after  J. 
P.  v.  195. 

2  Born  Sept.  13,  1409  ;  m.  1421  ;  d.  1432. 


72  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

begged  him  to  stay  at  home.  The  frank  confession  was 
made  just  as  Joan  and  the  duke  were  starting  for  the 
army.  "Do  not  be  afraid,  my  lady,"  said  Joan.  "I 
will  bring  him  safe  back  to  you,  as  well  as  he  now  is,  or 
even  better."1 

About  the  middle  of  April,  Joan  left  the  abbey  and 
went  to  Tours,  the  most  important  city  in  that  part  of 
France.2  According  to  the  custom  of  the  time,  she  was 
here  provided  with  a  military  household  befitting  the 
position  she  was  about  to  take.  Louis  of  Coutes,  the 
boy  who  had  lived  with  her  in  the  tower  at  Chinon,  was 
made  her  page,  together  with  another  boy  named  Ray- 
mond. John  of  Aulon,  a  discreet  young  man,  became 
her  squire.  John  Pasquerel,  an  Austin  friar  and  an 
acquaintance  of  Metz  or  of  Poulengy,  was  by  one  of  them 
brought  to  her  and  acted  as  her  confessor.  He  was  a 
gossipy,  amiable  man,  with  a  good  opinion  of  himself, 
who  became  sincerely  attached  to  Joan,  but  had  no  influ- 
ence over  her.3 


1  P.  iii.  96,  Alengon  ;  iv.  10,  Cagny.     It  seems  that  the  young 
duchess  at  some  time  followed  her  husband  as  far  as  Orleans.     P. 
v.  264. 

2  J.  stayed  af  Tours  with  one  La  Pau  or  Dupuy.   P.  iii.  66,  Coutes  ; 
101,  Pasquerel. 

3  See  P.  iii.  65,  Coutes;   100,  Pasquerel;  209,  Aulon.     For  her 
armor,  see  v.  258.     The  evidence  that  her  cousin  was  her  chaplain 
is  weak.     See  P.  v.  252  ;  B.  de  Molandon,  Fam.  de  J.,  125.     Accord- 
ing to  Pasquerel's  testimony  as  reported,  he  met  Joan's  mother  at 
Le  Puy  en  Velay,  together  with  some  of  those  who  had  escorted  Joan 
to  Chinon.     M.  Quicherat  (P.  iii.  101,  note)  points  out  that  both  Le 
Puy  and  Joan's  mother  are  out  of  the  question,  and  conjectures  that 
for  "  mater  "  we  should  read  "  frater,"  and  for  the  Latin  name  of  Le 
Puy  the  very  similar  Latin  name  of  Azay  le  Rideau.     Probably  M. 
Quicherat's  emendations  are  as  good  as  any  that  can  be  suggested. 
M.  Luce  (J.  a  Domremy,  ch.  xii.)  exhibits  great  erudition  in  assign- 
ing possible  reasons  for  a  visit  of  Isabel  of  Arc  to  Le  Puy,  —  a  char- 
acteristic example  of  the  madness  into  which  the  learning  of  that 
eminent  scholar  often  led  him. 


POITIERS.  73 

At  this  time,  also,  two  of  her  brothers  joined  her.1 
During  the  preceding  months,  official  inquiry  had  been 
made  at  Domremy  concerning  Joan  and  her  family,  and 
probably  the  young  men  were  not  sorry  of  a  chance  to 
follow  their  sister  to  court,  where  she  had  suddenly  made 
so  great  a  commotion.  The  like  opportunity  of  advance- 
ment had  never  before  come  to  boys  in  Domremy,  and 
thereafter  John  and  Peter  accompanied  Joan  in  most  of 
her  campaigns.  They  were  commonplace  fellows,  glad  to 
avail  themselves  of  their  sister's  reputation,  which  brought 
them  patents  of  nobility,  lucrative  offices  and  lands,  and 
off  which  they  lived  for  the  rest  of  their  lives.  Their 
conduct  was  not  meaner  than  that  of  many  other  persons 
in  like  case ;  but  it  is  clear  that  they  wholly  lacked  the 
spirit  of  their  sister,  and  that,  from  the  time  she  left 
Domremy,  neither  they  nor  the  rest  of  her  family  in  any 
way  guided  her.2 

Her  armor,  her  pages,  and  her  squire,  even  her  confes- 
sor, Joan  received  as  a  matter  of  course,  without  any 
choice  on  her  part ;  for  two  things  she  gave  precise  di- 
rections. At  St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois  she  had  heard 
three  masses  on  her  journey  to  court.  The  church  was 
a  resort  for  pilgrims,  and  many  votive  offerings  had  been 
made  to  the  saint ; 3  near  the  altar,  perhaps  beneath  it, 
was  an  old  chest,  holding  fetters  offered  by  prisoners, 
rusty  swords,  and  other  bits  of  iron.  Joan's  voices  bade 

1  It  is  probable  that  they  joined  her  at  this  time,  though  not  cer- 
tain.    They  were  both  with  her  on  the  expedition  to  Orleans  (P.  iv. 
153,  Journ.  Siege;  and  see  v.  213,  260),  and  would  hardly  have  had 
time,  after  Joan  had  been  accepted,  to  join  her  before  she  reached 
Tours.     The  arrival  of  one  of  them  mentioned  by  Laval  (v.  108) 
was  probably  after  a  short  absence. 

2  The  failure  of  Joan  ever  to  mention  her  brothers,  considering 
that  they  were  almost  constantly  with  her,  is  very  significant.     She 
said  that  her  brothers  then  had  her  effects  (P.  i.  78),  and  that  Charles 
had  given  them  coats-of-arms  (i.  117).     That  is  all. 

8  See  Bourasse',  Miracles  de  Madame  Ste.  Katherine. 


74  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

her  send  to  this  place  and  ask  for  a  sword;  an  armorer 
of  Tours  went  thither  and  brought  it  to  her,  cleaned  by 
the  care  of  the  priests  of  the  church,  and  cased  in  a  scab- 
bard which  they  caused  to  be  made. 

The  biographers  of  Joan  have  generally  asserted  that 
she  knew  of  the  existence  of  the  sword  in  the  church  by 
revelation  of  her  voices.  At  that  time,  without  doubt, 
this  was  the  belief  of  most  people,  but  their  belief  proves 
little.  The  growth  of  legends  concerning  Joan  was  very 
rapid,1  and  it  was  commonly  reported  not  only  that  she 
had  never  seen  the  sword,  but  that  she  had  never  been 
inside  the  church,  and  this,  though  she  had  spoken  of 
hearing  masses  there.  While  in  the  church,  she  proba- 
bly saw  or  at  least  heard  of  the  old  chest  with  its  rusty 
contents,  and  later  received  the  divine  command  to  take 
this  well-tried  weapon  of  some  pious  pilgrim  for  her 
own.2 

1  See  particularly  the  deposition  of  Pasquerel,  P.  iii.  100,  and  the 
letter  of  Boulainvilliers,  v.  114. 

2  This  seems  to  me  the  reasonable  conclusion,  though  opposed  to 
that  of  most  critics.    For  the  common  belief  of  the  time,  see  P.  iv.  54, 
129,  212.     The  clerk  of  La  Rochelle,  Rel.  ined.,  22,  is  not  so  ex- 
plicit, and  says  merely  that  the  sword  was  found  in  a  chest  which, 
according  to  common  report,  had  not  been  opened  for  twenty  years. 
Bouchet,  Ann.  Aquitaine,  246,  tells  how  the  sword  happened  to  be  in 
the  church,  but  follows  the  legend  in  asserting  that  Joan  herself  had 
never  been  there.     The  material  part  of  Joan's  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject runs  thus:  "  While  she  was  at  Tours  or  Chinon,  she  sent  to  ask 
for  a  sword  which  was  in  the  church  of  St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois,  be- 
hind the  altar;  and  immediately  afterwards  it  was  found,  all  rusty. 
Being  asked  how  she  knew  the  sword  was  there,  she  replied  that  the 
sword   was  rusty  in  the  earth   (or  with  the   earth),  and  had  five 
crosses  on  it;  and  she  knew  it  was  there  by  means  of  her  voices,  and 
she  never  saw  the  man  who  went  to  ask  for  the  sword.     She  wrote 
to  the  clergymen  of  the  place  to  be  pleased  to  let  her  have  that  sword, 
and  they  sent  it  to  her.     It  was  not  very  deep  in  the  earth  behind 
the  altar,  she  thinks ;  she  is  not  sure,  however,  whether  it  was  before 
the  altar  or  behind  it;  but  she  thinks  that  she  wrote  that  the  said 
sword  was  behind  the  altar."     P.  i.  76.     "  Being  asked  what  was 


POITIERS.  75 

Much  more  important  than  her  sword  was  the  banner 
which  at  this  time  she  caused  to  be  made.  She  had  no 
love  of  arins  and,  like  most  women,  felt  a  horror  of 
blood ;  she  therefore  wished  to  use  her  sword  as  little  as 
she  might.1  She  was  the  King  of  Heaven's  messenger 
to  save  the  kingdom  of  France,  and  she  gladly  obeyed 
her  voices  when  they  told  her  to  carry  the  banner  of  the 
King  of  Heaven.  The  field  of  the  banner  was  sown  with 
lilies.  In  the  midst  of  it  Gspd  was*  painted,  holding  the 
world  and  sitting  upon  the  <4ou(^;  on  either  side  an 
angel  knelt;  the  motto  was  vFasus  MARIA.  When 
asked  at  her  trial  which  she  loved  better,  her  sword  or 
her  banner,  she  answered  that  she  loved  the  banner  bet- 
ter by  far,  yes,  forty  times  as  much  as  the  sword.  It 
told,  indeed,  the  story  of  her  mission,  as  she  conceived 
it :  the  lilies  of  France,  the  country  she  was  sent  to  save ; 
God,  who  had  sent  her;  and  Jesus,  son  of  Mary,  her 
watchword,  which  she  prefixed  to  her  more  solemn  let- 
ters, the  last  word  she  uttered  at  the  instant  of  death.2 

the  use  of  the  five  crosses  which  were  on  the  sword  which  she  found 
at  St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois,  she  replied  that  she  knew  nothing  about 
it."  P.  i.  179. 

When  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  these  words  represent  not  Joan's 
exact  language,  but  the  notary's  understanding  of  it,  they  seem  to  me 
to  import  that  the  notary  shared  the  legendary  belief,  but  that  Joan 
meant  to  say  no  more  than  that  her  voices  had  directed  her  to  send 
for  a  sword  which  she  had  seen  or  heard  about  when  she  had  wor- 
shiped in  the  church  a  few  weeks  before.  That  the  sword  was  an 
ex-voto  is  pretty  plain,  and  when  we  consider  how  ex-votos  are  generally 
kept,  the  likelihood  of  Joan's  having  seen  it  is  not  lessened.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  the  most  competent  critic  of  Joan's  history,  M.  Jules 
Quicherat,  holds  the  other  opinion,  and  believes  that  she  had  never 
seen  the  sword.  Ap.  nouv.,  69.  As  M.  Quicherat  was  by  no  means 
a  traditional  Catholic,  his  opinion  was  not  influenced  by  religious 
prepossessions,  and  is  certainly  entitled  to  great  weight.  See,  also, 
his  note  to  the  Rel.  ined.,  p.  11. 

1  P.  iii.  205,  Seguin. 

2  See  P.  i.  78,  117,  181,  J.'s  test. ;  v.  154,  271.     The  accounts  of 
her  banner  vary  considerably ;  probably  she  had  more  than  one.     See 
iii.  7  ;  iv.  152. 


76  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

After  staying  about  ten  days  at  Tours,  Joan  went  up 
the  Loire  to  Blois,  where  the  troops  had  their  rendezvous, 
as  it  was  the  nearest  city  to  Orleans  which,  remained  in 
Charles's  hands.  It  had  been  hard  to  find  money  to  pay 
soldiers  or  to  buy  provisions,  but  by  the  efforts  of  Yo- 
lande,  the  queen's  mother,  of  Alencon  and  other  lords, 
and  of  some  patriotic  cities,  like  La  Rochelle,1  the  money 
was  obtained  at  last.  Not  long  before  Joan's  departure, 
the  learned  men  chosen  to  investigate  her  case  made  their 
official  report.  The  real  decision  to  employ  her  had  been 
reached  at  Poitiers  some  weeks  earlier;  but  now  that  she 
was  to  be  the  duly  commissioned  agent  of  the  king  of 
France,  it  was  thought  best  that  those  skilled  in  such 
matters  should  formally  certify  to  Charles  their  opinion 
that  he  might  safely  use  the  help  she  offered  him.  If 
she  failed,  and  his  orthodoxy  was  attacked  for  employing 
a  witch,  such  certificates  would  be  useful  as  showing  that 
he  had  acted  in  good  faith. 

The  language  of  the  report  was  very  guarded.  Con- 
sidering the  need  of  the  realm  and  the  prayers  to  God  of 
his  poor  subjects,  the  king  ought  neither  lightly  to  reject 
nor  lightly  to  accept  the  help  of  the  Maid,  but,  following 
Holy  Scripture,  ought  to  prove  her,  both  by  inquiry  into 
her  past  life,  and  also  by  asking  of  her  a  sign,  as  did 
Ahaz.  Gideon,  and  other  persons  in  like  case.  The 
report  then  went  on  to  set  forth  that  for  six  weeks  the 
king  had  closely  examined  the  Maid,  and  had  found  in 
her  no  evil,  but,  on  the  contrary,  many  virtues.  As  to 
the  sign,  she  had  declared  that  she  would  show  it  before 
Orleans,  and  nowhere  else,  this  being  God's  will. 
AVherefore,  all  things  considered,  the  king  ought  not  to 
prevent  her  from  going  to  Orleans,  but  should  send  her 
there  in  honorable  fashion,  hoping  in  God,  inasmuch  as 
to  doubt  her  without  cause  would  be  to  despise  the  Holy 

1  Loiseleur,  Compte  des  depenses,  186.  On  April  13  a  considerable 
sum  of  money  was  brought  to  Orleans.  P.  iv.  145. 


POITIERS.  77 

Spirit,  and  to  render  himself  unworthy  of  God's  help, 
as  said  Gamaliel  to  the  Jews  concerning  the  Apostles.1 
Thus  formally  approved,  about  nine  weeks  after  leaving 
Vaucouleurs  in  the  company  of  two  lawless  adventurers, 
Joan  entered  Blois  with  the  captain  of  Chinon  and  the 
chancellor  of  France.2 

1  P.  iii.  391.     Written   opinions  were   obtained  from  other  dis- 
tinguished experts  at  about  this  time.     See  the  memoir  of  the  arch- 
bishop of  Embrun,  P.  vi.  565 ;  and  see  P.  iii.  411 ;  v.  474. 

2  P.  iii.  4,  Bastard.     From  the  testimony  of  Joan,  P.  i.  71-73, 
94,  171,  it  has  been  supposed  that  an  elaborate  proces-verbal  of 
her  examination  at  Poitiers  was  prepared;  see,  also,  the  note  of  M. 
Quicherat,  v.  471.     This  seems   at  least  doubtful;   no  record  was 
produced  at  the  second  trial,  though  one  of  Joan's  examiners,  Seguin, 
then  testified  at  some   length.     Joan  undoubtedly   supposed  that 
written  minutes  of  her  examination  were  made,  and  this  may  have 
been  done,  but  probably  these  minutes  were  informal,  and  soon  de- 
stroyed.    Garivel,  iii.  19,  says  that  the  examination  continued  about 
three  weeks,  but  Joan's  letter  to  the  English  was  written  within  less 
than  a   fortnight   of   her  arrival   in   Poitiers.     The  opinion  of   the 
doctors,  iii.  391,  was  written  six  weeks  after  Joan's  arrival  at  Chinon, 
and  therefore  about  April  6.     In  any  event,  it  was  issued  after  Joan 
left  Poitiers. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS. 

To  understand  the  operations  for  the  relief  of  Orleans, 
it  is  necessary  first  to  know  something  of  the  siege  and  of 
the  campaign  which  preceded  it. 

In  the  spring  of  1428,  as  has  been  said  already,1  the 
English  with  their  Burgundian  allies  occupied 
Normandy,  Picardy,  Artois,  Isle  de  France, 
Perche,  all  French  Flanders  except  Tournai,  nearly  all 
Champagne,  considerable  parts  of  Maine  and  of  the 
Gatinais,  besides  Burgundy  and  the  Nivernais  in  the 
east,  and  the  most  of  Gascony  and  Guyenne  in  the 
southwest.  The  duke  of  Brittany,  irritated  by  the  plots 
of  Charles's  favorites  and  the  disgrace  of  his  brother,  the 
constable  Richemont,  inclined  to  the  English  alliance, 
though  he  gave  them  little  active  help.2  Charles  ruled 
over  only  the  central  provinces  of  France,  Dauphiny 
being  almost  as  a  foreign  possession,  while  Languedoc 
sometimes  wavered  in  its  allegiance  and  often  was  com- 
pelled to  make  its  own  treaties  with  the  English  parti- 
sans.3 

These  central  provinces  of  France  are  bounded  north 
and  east  by  the  Loire.  Rising  in  the  mountains  of  Lan- 
guedoc, less  than  a  hundred  miles  from  the  Mediterra- 
nean, this  river  flows  northward  for  two  hundred  and  fifty 
miles,  though  bending  more  and  more  to  the  west,  until 
at  Orleans  it  comes  within  seventy  miles  of  Paris. 

1  Page  11,  supra. 

2  See  Lobineau,  Hist.  Bretagne,  i.  572  et  seq. 

3  See  Flourac,  Jean  I.  Comte  de  Foix. 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  79 

Speaking  roughly,  the  duke  of  Burgundy  owned  the  ter- 
ritory to  the  east  of  the  Loire;  the  provinces  to  the  west 
of  it  were  loyal.  From  Orleans  the  Loire  continues  its 
sweep  for  about  sixty  miles,  here  bending  in  a  curve  to 
the  south  and  west  until  it  reaches  Tours;  from  Tours 
it  flows  nearly  due  west  to  the  Bay  of  Biscay.  North  of 
the  Loire,  Charles  still  had  some  possessions,  but  the 
towns  between  Orleans  and  Paris  were  always  in  danger, 
frequently  taken  and  retaken,  while  the  broad  river  and 
the  fortresses  which  covered  its  passage  kept  the  central 
provinces  reasonably  clear  of  the  English.  If  the  regent 
Bedford  would  make  his  nephew  really  king  of  all  France, 
the  Loire  must  be  crossed. 

For  thirteen  years  England  had  made  great  sacrifices 
both  in  men  and  money  to  accomplish  the  conquest  of 
France.  When  it  is  considered  that  these  sacrifices  were 
made  by  a  country  neither  rich  nor  populous  and  com- 
paratively rude,  and  that  they  were  made  to  carry  on  a 
foreign  war,  some  idea  may  be  gained  of  the  prosperity 
and  strength  which  an  insular  position  and  domestic  peace 
had  given  to  England.1  The  campaign  of  1427,  directed 
against  the  Gatinais,  and  especially  against  Montargis, 
which  lies  about  forty  miles  northeast  of  Orleans,  had 
failed.  For  the  campaign  of  1428  greater  preparation 
was  made.  Large  sums  of  money  were  subscribed  and 
borrowed ;  the  mayor  and  citizens  of  London  lent  three 
thousand  pounds.2 

The  method  of  raising  an  army  in  the  fifteenth  century 
differed  much  from  that  practiced  to-day.  The  old  feu- 
dal levies,  serving  because  it  was  their  duty,  like  the  great 

1  Domestic  peace  in  the  fifteenth  century  is  a  comparative  term. 
There  had  been  civil  war  in  England  during  part  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  IV.,  and  seditious  insurrections  under  Richard  II.,  but  for  cen- 
turies England  had  enjoyed  domestic  peace  in  a  far  greater  degree 
than  any  Continental  country. 

2  Stevenson,  Letters,  etc.,  Illustrative  of  the  Wars  of  the  English  in 
France,  t.  i.,  lix. 


80  v    JOAN   OF   ARC. 

standing  armies  of  the  present  generation,  lost  their  effi- 
ciency when  the  larger  part  of  the  community  was  no 
longer  used  to  arms.  Regular  forces  of  professional  sol- 
diers, kept  constantly  on  foot  like  the  armies  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  were  as  yet  almost  unknown.  The  Eng- 
lish and  French  armies  were  composed  mostly,  though 
not  altogether,  of  companies  whose  captains  were  under 
written  contract  with  the  sovereign  to  supply  a  certain 
number  of  men  at  so  much  a  head.  In  such  contracts, 
the  rights  of  both  parties  were  carefully  guarded.  The 
troop  was  to  be  inspected  frequently,  so  that  the  king 
should  get  his  money's  worth,,  while  payment  was  to  be 
made  for  soldiers  disabled  or  killed;  no  captain  was 
allowed  to  recruit  his  troop  at  the  expense  of  another's, 
and  the  division  of  ransom  was  regulated  exactly.1  This 
waging  war  by  contraqt  tended  to  lengthen  operations, 
since  peace  deprived  the  contracting  captain  and  most  of 
his  men  of  their  professional  livelihood.  It  was  more 
difficult  to  maintain  discipline  among  troops  furnished 
under  this  system  of  contract  than  among  troops  levied 
directly  by  the  sovereign,  and  so  the  foundation  of  a  reg- 
ular standing  army  by  the  organization  of  the  French 
gendarmerie  at  the  end  of  the  Hundred  Years'  War  soon 
resulted  in  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  English.  In 
1428,  the  principal  contactor  employed  by  the  English 
and  the  general  of  their  jkrmy  was  Thomas  Montagu,  earl 
of  Salisbury  in  England,?  and  count  of  Perche  in  France. 
He  was  in  the  prime  of  l|fe,  accounted  "the  most  crafty, 
skillful,  and  lucky  of  the  princes  and  captains  of  the  realm 
of  England."  He  landed  at  Calais  about  July  1,  and 
went  to  Paris,  where  the  plan  of  the  campaign  was  set- 
tled in  council.  Some  favored  an  attack  upon  Anjou, 
and  it  has  been  said  that  the  regent  Bedford  agreed  with 

1  See  Boucher  de  Molandon,  L'armee  anglaise,  209,  and  passim  ; 
Jarry,  Le  compte  de  Varmee  anglaise  ;  Loiseleur,  Compte  des  depenses 
faites  par  Charles  VII.;  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  vol.  ii.  44. 


THE    SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  81 

them,  but  it  was  decided  to  make  Orleans  the  objective 
point.1 

The  choice  was  natural,  and  seems  to  have  been  a  wise 
one.  To  attack  Charles  effectively,  the  line  of  the 
Loire  must  be  forced,  and  Orleans  was  the  point  on  the 
Loire  nearest  Paris,  the  English  base  of  supplies.  The 
men  of  Orleans  felt  themselves  aggrieved  by  the  choice, 
and  the  reasons  for  their  hope  of  immunity  illustrate  the 
strangely  personal  character  of  mediaeval  warfare.  Charles 
of  Orleans,  their  feudal  lord,  had  been  a  prisoner  in 
England  since  Agincourt,  and  it  seemed  to  some  people 
unchivalrous  to  attack  the  possessions  of  a  man  who 
could  not  defend  himself.  Again,  it  was  said  that  Salis- 
bury himself  had  promised  the  duke  to  let  his  city  alone, 
—  a  strange  promise  for  a  commanding  general  to  make, 
though  some  men  pretended  to  name  the  sum  of  money 
paid  for  it.  In  fact,  Salisbury  had  negotiated  a  treaty 
to  this  effect  with  the  Bastard  of  Orleans,  the  duke's 
agent  in  his  absence,  but  the  regent  Bedford  had  re- 
fused to  ratify  it,  saying  with  reason  that  an  imprisoned 
prince  could  not  compel  his  provinces  to  observe  neu- 
trality, and  that  his  request  was  not  a  sufficient  reason 
for  suspending  military  operations.2 

Though  the  English  council  had  decided  to  attack  Or- 
leans, Salisbury  began  his  campaign  by  move-   August, 
ments  which  would  open  the  road  to  Orleans  and   1428- 
Anjou  alike.     At  the  beginning  of  August  he  marched 
toward  Chartres  with  four  or  five  thousand  soldiers,  about 
half  of  whom  he  had  brought  with  him  from  England, 

1  B.  de  Molandon,  L'armee  anglaisa,  50 ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chs. 
xlix.,  lii. ;  Beaurepaire,  Elats  de  Normandie  sous  la  domination  anglaise, 
168.     If  the  English  army  had  been  directed  against  Anjou,  it  would 
still  have  attempted  to  cross  the  Loire,  but  would  probably  have 
sought  passage  a  hundred  miles  below  Orleans. 

2  B.  de  Molaiidon,  59 ;  Villaret,  Campagnes  des  Anglais,  54 ;  P.  v. 
286. 


82  '     JOAN  OF  ARC. 

while  the  rest  had  been  raised  in  France  or  drafted  from 
the  English  garrisons  in  Normandy  and  elsewhere.  Most 
of  his  men  were  English,  a  few  were  Frenchmen  who 
held  to  Henry  VI. ;  at  one  time  or  another  he  was  joined 
by  some  Burgundian  allies.  Acting  with  great  vigor,  he 
again  retook  some  towns  which  the  French  had  retaken 
in  their  successful  campaign  of  the  preceding  year.  On 
reaching  Chartres  about  August  15,  he  disclosed  his  plan 
of  operations,  and  Orleans  was  seen  to  be  his  objective 
point,  though  he  did  not  march  directly  against  it.  Be- 
fore doing  so,  he  proposed  to  isolate  the  city  by  reducing 
all  the  neighboring  towns,  and  he  meant  to  besiege  it 
only  after  he  had  secured  his  own  communications,  and 
had  thoroughly  cut  those  of  the  French.1 

The  only  serious  resistance  was  that  made  by  Jan- 
ville,  a  place  about  twenty  miles  north  of  Orleans,  and 
Janville  held  out  but  a  week.  First  the  town  was  occu- 
pied, and  then  the  castle  was  stormed,  after  the  fiercest 
assault,  as  Salisbury  wrote  to  the  mayor  of  London,  that 
he  had  ever  seen.  Its  defenders  were  treated  harshly, 
though  not  more  so  than  the  laws  of  war  allowed.  The 
Septem-  warning  thus  given  was  heeded.  About  Septem- 
ber, 1428.  ker  5  Salisbury  wrote  out  a  list  of  forty  towns 
which  he  had  taken  in  as  many  days.  In  some  cases  the 
inhabitants  swore  allegiance  to  Henry  VI.2 

Among  these  towns  were  several  which  secured  the 
passage  of  the  Loire,  both  above  and  below  Orleans. 
Ten  miles  down-stream  on  the  north  bank  of  the  river 
was  Meung,  six  miles  farther  was  Beaugency,  both  with 
bridges  strongly  fortified.  Ten  or  twelve  miles  up-stream 
on  the  south  bank  was  Jargeau,  with  another  fortified 
bridge.  All  these  places  the  English  occupied  in  force. 

1  Villaret,  62    et  seq. ;   Jarry,  78  ;   Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  li. ; 
Chron.  Puc.,  ch.  xxxi. 

2  Villaret,  63,  and  notes,  141  ;  Chron.  Puc.,  ch.  xxxi.  ;  Monstrelet, 
Bk.  II.  ch.  li. 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  83 

Above  Jargeau  was  Sully,  belonging  to  La  Tremoille, 
which  he  hastened  to  surrender,  probably  in  order  to 
save  his  property  from  damage.1 

Now  that  the  passage  of  the  Loire  was  secured  at 
Meung,  Beaugency,  and  Jargeau,  it  may  be  asked  why 
the  English  waited  to  besiege  Orleans  and  did  not  rather 
push  on  at  once,  into  the  heart  of  France.  It  was  possi- 
ble for  them  to  march  by  way  of  Jargeau  directly  upon 
Bourges,  having  a  safe  line  of  communication  and  retreat 
by  way  of  Auxerre  and  the  Burgundian  possessions  east 
of  the  Loire ;  but  to  do  this  would  leave  Paris  and  Nor- 
mandy open  to  French  attack.  It  was  possible,  also,  to 
pass  the  Loire  below  Orleans  and  march  on  Tours  and 
Poitiers ;  but  this  would  expose  the  army  to  great  danger 
in  case  of  defeat,  as  experience  had  shown  once,  and  was 
to  show  again,  that  neither  Meung  nor  Beaugency  could 
defend  the  passage  of  the  Loire  beyond  a  few  hours, 
or  a  day  or  two  at  the  most.  Salisbury's  best  reason 
for  instantly  besieging  Orleans,  however,  was  his  desire 
to  use  in  attacking  a  strong  and  valuable  city  the  im- 
petus he  had  gained  by  his  rapid  success.  For  the  long 
investment  which  actually  followed,  he  was  in  no  way 
responsible. 

When  the  English  army  took  the  field,  a  French  army 
should  have  taken  the  field  to  meet  it,  but  Charles  was 
without  that  useful  device  for  carrying  on  a  campaign. 
In  September  and  October,  after  Salisbury  had  crossed 
the  Loire,  the  Estates  of  France  met  at  Chinon,  and 
voted  large  sums  of  money  for  the  war.  They  also 
begged  the  king  to  practice  economy,  to  maintain  jus- 
tice, and  to  make  peace  with  the  duke  of  Burgundy 
and  the  constable.  To  these  requests  the  king  gave 
vaguely  favorable  answers,  and  lived  the  same  slothful, 

1  Chron.  Puc.,  chs.  xxxii.-xxxiv.  Between  Sully  and  Blois  there 
were  but  four  bridges  crossing  the  Loire,  viz.,  at  Jargeau,  Orleans, 
Meung,  and  Beaugency. 


84  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

cowardly,  spendthrift  life  as  before,  the  creature  of  La 
Tremoille.1 

On  all  sides  of  Orleans  the  country  is  very  flat.  In 
the  Sologne,  as  the  district  south  of  the  Loire  is  called, 
dikes  are  needed  to  protect  the  fields  against  the  river  in 
flood.  In  the  Beauce,  the  district  north  of  the  Loire, 
where  Orleans  itself  is  built,  the  ground  is  but  a  few  feet 
higher.  The  river  is  from  three  hundred  to  seven  hun- 
dred yards  wide,  neither  rapid  nor  slow,  flowing  among 
shifting  sand-bars  and  low  islands  of  changing  shape. 
In  1428,  the  city  was  built  close  to  the  northern  bank  in 
a  slightly  irregular  rectangle,  about  nine  hundred  yards 
along  the  river  by  six  hundred  yards  in  the  other  direc- 
tion. It  was  protected  by  a  wall  from  twenty  to  thirty 
feet  high,  having  a  parapet  and  machicolations,  with 
twenty-four  towers.  Outside  the  wall,  except  where  it 
faced  the  river,  was  a  ditch  forty  feet  wide  and  twenty 
feet  deep. 

The  bridge  which  crossed  the  Loire  was  about  three 
hundred  and  fifty  yards  long,  including  that  part  of  it 
which  rested  on  an  island  in  mid-stream.  On  its  south- 
ernmost pier  was  built  a  small  fortress  called  the  Tou- 
relles,  connected  with  the  shore  of  the  Sologne  by  a 
drawbridge,  which,  in  its  turn,  was  covered  by  a  strong 
earthwork  or  boulevard.2 

Though  the  walls  of  Orleans  inclosed  little  more  than 
a  hundred  acres  of  land,  and  though  part  of  this  small 
space  was  occupied  by  a  large  cathedral  and  several  par- 
ish churches,  yet  twenty  thousand  people  had  their  home 
in  the  closely  packed  houses  that  lined  the  narrow  and 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  170 ;  Thomas,  Etats  generaux  sous  Charles  VII., 
28 ;  Ib.,  "  Le  midi  et  les  E.  G.  sous  Charles  VII."  (Annales  du  midi, 
January,  1892),  4  ;  Loiseleur,  Compte  des  depenses,  63. 

2  See  Jollois,  Hist,  du  siege  d'Orleans,  in  4to,  containing  maps  and 
plans. 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  85 

crooked  streets.1  The  expense  of  building  and  maintain- 
ing a  wall  was  so  great,  the  duty  of  watching  it  by  day 
and  night  was  so  burdensome,  that,  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  the  cost  of  land  inclosed  in  a  walled  town  was  very 
considerable.  Modern  cities  are  enormously  more  popu- 
lous than  any  which  existed  five  hundred  years  ago;  but 
it  is  likely  that  the  overcrowding  of  the  poor,  now  much 
talked  about,  was  greater  then  than  it  is  to-day.  Just 
outside  the  walls  were  several  populous  faubourgs  or 
suburbs. 

On  October  5,  Jargeau  surrendered  to  the  English. 
A  week  afterwards,   Salisbury  appeared  before   October, 
the  Tourelles,  having  a  considerable  body  of  men   1428' 
and  a  well-appointed  siege  train.     The  garrison  of  Or- 
leans was  commanded  by  Gaucourt,  an  elderly  and  expe- 
rienced soldier,  but  without  marked  ability.     Under  him 
served   several   of   Charles's    hard -fighting,    freebooting 
captains,  and  a  small  body  of  professional  troops ;  beside 
these  the  citizens  f ought #with  desperate  courage.2 

With  his  odd-looking  copper  cannon,  some  of  which 
threw  stone  balls  of  a  hundred  and  fifty  pounds'  weight 
a  distance  of  seven  hundred  yards,  Salisbury  battered  at 
short  range  the  Tourelles  and  its  protecting  boulevard, 
while  he  dropped  some  shot  into  the  city  itself.  The 
garrison,  also,  was  well  supplied  with  artillery,  and  it 
returned  Salisbury's  fire,  but  without  much  effect,  as 
there  was  nothing  in  particular  to  aim  at.  At  the  end  of 
about  a  week  of  bombardment,  varied  by  sortie,  the  Eng- 
lish made  a  furious  assault  upon  the  boulevard.  This 
lasted  four  hours,  and  in  it,  says  the  chronicler  of  the 
siege,  "were  done  many  fair  deeds  of  arms  on  the  one 

1  See   Vergnaud-Romanesi,  Des   diverges  enceintes,   etc.,   8 ;   Vil- 
liaume',  Jeanne  d'Arc,  29. 

2  P.  iv.  94  et  seq.,  Journ.  Siege  ;  Jollois,  Hist.  Siege,  13  et  seq.  ; 
Parenteau,  Un  canon  de  bronze  du  siege  d' Orleans. 


86  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

side  and  the  other."  Even  the  women  of  Orleans  brought 
across  the  bridge  to  the  soldiers  boiling  oil,  lime,  and  hot 
ashes,  whatever  would  check  the  besiegers.  For  the  time 
the  English  were  repulsed,  but  the  boulevard  was  mined, 
and  the  French  position  untenable;  the  boulevard  was 
first  abandoned,  and  then  the  Tourelles  itself,  having 
been  battered  to  a  ruin.  Before  withdrawing,  however, 
the  French  broke  down  a  span  of  the  bridge  between  the 
Tourelles  and  the  town,  and  built  a  barricade  at  their 
side  of  the  opening.1 

On  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  Salisbury  went  up 
into  the  Tourelles  with  some  of  his  officers  to  look  at  the 
city  across  the  river.  As  he  stood  by  an  embrasure,  he 
was  struck  in  the  head  by  a  cannon  ball,  and  was  wounded 
so  severely  that  in  three  days  he  died.  No  one  knew 
who  fired  the  lucky  shot,  and  so  among  the  French  his 
death  "was  esteemed  by  many  persons  to  be  the  work  of 
God.  For  he  spared  neither  monasteries  nor  churches  if 
once  he  could  get  into  them,  which  naturally  leads  us  to 
believe  that  his  days  were  shortened  by  God's  just  ven- 
geance."2 

The  death  of  Salisbury  seems  to  have  paralyzed  the 
English.  No  one  was  commissioned  to  command  in  his 
place,  and,  after  doing  nothing  for  a  fortnight,  on  Novem- 
ber 8  the  main  force  of  the  English  divided  and  with- 
drew to  Meung  and  Jargeau.  Five  hundred  men,  under 
William  Glasdale,  were  left  in  the  Tourelles,  after  the 
fort  had  been  repaired  and  its  boulevard  had  been  rebuilt 
stronger  than  ever. 

Meantime,  the  garrison  had  been  strongly  reinforced, 
and  Gaucourt,  who  had  been  injured  by  a  fall,  was  super- 

1  P.  iv.  98,  99,  Journ.  Siege. 

2  P.  iv.   100,   102,  Journ.    Siege;    v.  287,   Chron.  de  VetaUisse- 
menl  de  la  fete.     His  death  was  said  to  have  been  foretold  by  an 
astrologer.     Chron.  de  Jean  Raoulet,  in  J.  Chartier,  ed.  Vallet  de  V. 
iii.  197. 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  87 

seded  in  his  command  by  John,  Bastard  of  Orleans,  after- 
wards created  count  of  Dunois.    He  was  the  nat-  Nov.-Dec. 
tiral  half -brother  of  the  duke  of  Orleans,  a  brave  1-l28* 
and   skillful   soldier  of   five -and -twenty,  and   accounted 
"the  finest  speaker  in  France."1 

His  forces  were  greatly  superior  to  those  of  Glasdale, 
but  he  did  not  attempt  to  retake  the  Tourelles ;  perhaps 
because  he  knew  that  the  main  body  of  the  English  was 
distant  only  four  or  five  hours'  march.  During  more  than 
three  weeks,  he  and  Glasdale  idly  faced  each  other,  while 
the  men  of  Orleans,  left  unmolested  for  the  time  on  the 
north  bank  of  the  Loire,  destroyed  the  city's  suburbs, 
"the  finest  in  the  kingdom,"  razing  fifteen  churches,  sev- 
eral monasteries,  hundreds  of  dwelling-houses,  everything 
that  could  shelter  an  Englishman  approaching  the  walls. 
Fifteen  thousand  people,  thus  made  homeless,  crowded 
into  Orleans,  nearly  doubling  its  population  and  threat- 
ening all  with  famine  and  disease. 

In  the  latter  part  of  November,  the  question  of  the 
command  of  the  English  forces  was  settled  by  dividing  it 
among  three  generals, —  William  Pole,  earl  of  Suffolk; 
Thomas,  Lord  Scales;  and  John,  Lord  Talbot,  "the 
great  Alcides  of  the  field."  All  these  were  men  of  note, 
but  after  Salisbury's  death  the  English  operations  lacked 
vigor.  About  December  1,  Talbot  came  to  the  Tourelles 
with  a  small  reinforcement,  and  for  nearly  a  month  he 
and  the  Bastard  kept  up  an  artillery  duel  across  the  river, 
with  very  little  damage  to  either  combatant.  One  day 
an  English  shot  fell  into  the  middle  of  a  table  at  which 
five  people  were  dining,  yet  110  one  was  hurt,  —  "a  mira- 
cle supposed  to  be  wrought  by  our  Lord,  at  the  prayer  of 

1  For  the  Bastard,  see  Basin,  Hist.  Charles  VII.,  i.  53  ;  Ver- 
gnaud-Romane'si,  Doc.  ined.  relatif  au  Batard  d' Orleans.  He  con- 
tinued to  sign  himself  "  Bastard  d'Orle'ans "  long  after  being  cre- 
ated count  of  Dunois.  See  Jarry,  Testaments,  etc.,  de  Jean  Batard 
tf  Orleans,  10. 


88  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

my  Lord  St.  Aignan,  patron  of  Orleans."  On  Christ- 
mas Day  there  was  a  truce  from  nine  in  the  morning 
until  three  in  the  afternoon,  "  during  which  time  Glasdale 
and  other  English  lords  begged  the  Bastard  and  the  Lord 
of  St.  Severe,  marshal  of  France,  to  cause  their  min- 
strels, trumpets,  and  clarions  to  play.  Which  was  done 
accordingly,  and  the  instruments  played  a  long  time, 
making  fine  music."  Military  operations  in  the  Middle 
Ages  were  sometimes  carried  on  in  a  leisurely  man- 
ner.1 

Between  Christmas  and  the  New  Year  the  main  body 
of  the  English  army  arrived,  advancing  through 
February,  the  Beauce  directly  against  the  city.  The  Bas- 
tard sallied  out  to  meet  it,  but  was  beaten  back, 
and  the  English  headquarters  were  established  in  a  bas- 
tille or  fortified  camp,  west  of  Orleans.  It  was  about  a 
gunshot  from  the  walls,  and  was  connected  by  a  bridge 
with  a  camp  on  the  south  bank  of  the  river,  below  the  Tou- 
relles.  From  time  to  time  the  English  built  other  forts 
west  of  the  city  and  at  about  the  same  distance  from  its 
walls;  but  for  several  months  they  did  not  try  to  invest 
Orleans  completely,  nor  did  they  make  any  vigorous  at* 
tempt  to  carry  the  city  by  storm  or  to  open  a  breach  in  the 
walls  by  bombardment  or  by  mining.  Not  infrequently 
considerable  supplies  were  smuggled  into  the  city,  but 
the  English  forces,  almost  always  successful  in  the  field, 
made  the  provisioning  of  Orleans  an  occupation  very 
risky  and  uncertain. 

During  all  this  time  Charles  VII.  lived  quietly  at 
Chinon,  and  there  received  deputations  from  the  citizens 

of  Orleans  urging  him  to  succor  their  city.   Prob- 
January- 

ably  he  always  hoped  that  a  French  relieving  army 
would  turn  up,  but  for  some  months  he  did  little  or  no- 
thing more  than  hope.    A  government  which  waits  to  ask 
for  supplies  until  its  enemies  have  been  six  weeks  in  the 
1  P.  iv.  104,  105,  Journ.  Siege. 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  89 

field  is  not  likely  to  be  very  prompt  in  relieving  besieged 
places.1 

Through  the  early  winter  the  siege  dragged  on,  with 
cannonading  and  frequent  sorties,  with  cutting  off  French 
supply  trains  and  dare-devil  exploits  in  bringing  them  in. 
The  peaceful  citizens  were  in  cdnstant  terror.  Sometimes 
the  English  disguised  themselves  as  women,  and  crept 
close  to  the  walls,  capturing  the  poor  vine-dressers  as 
they  ventured  forth.2  At  dead  of  night  the  bells  rang 
out  or  the  cry  of  treason  was  raised,  startling  every  one 
from  sleep:  it  might  be  a  false  alarm,  or  the  English 
might  be  already  at  the  gates.  There  were  distractions, 
of  course.  Two  knights,  chosen  from  the  two  parties, 
would  break  a  lance  in  regular  tournament;  or  the 
English  and  French  pages  would  be  turned  loose  in  one 
of  the  sandy  islands  of  the  river,  to  fight  it  out  with 
fists  and  stones,  while  grown-up  people  looked  on.  The 
humor  of  the  siege  was  supplied  in  large  part  by  one  John 
of  Lorraine,  who  used  with  much  skill  a  culverin,  the 
unwieldy  prototype  of  the  musket.  Posted  on  the  bridge, 
he  did  great  execution,  varying  his  work  with  pleasant 
jests  at  the  English  expense.  "In  order  to  mock  them, 
sometimes  he  let  himself  fall  to  the  ground,  feigning  to 
be  dead  or  wounded,  and  thus  was  carried  into  the  city. 
But  incontinently  he  returned  to  the  fight,  and  so  bore 
himself  that  the  English  knew  him  for  a  live  man  to  their 
great  harm  and  discomfiture."3 

Early  in  February  a  French  army  of  relief  was  gath- 
ered, and  its  command  was  given  to  Charles  of  February, 
Bourbon,  count  of  Clermont,  a  prince  of  the  1- 
blood  royal,  and  a  headstrong  young  man.4  Instead  of 
making  a  direct  attack  upon  the  English  camp,  he  de- 
cided first  to  intercept  a  large  convoy  of  provisions  and 

1  See  P.  iv.  103,  note  3.  2  P.  iv.  136,  Journ.  Siege. 

8  P.  iv.  105,  Journ.  Siege  •  and  see  Journ.  Siege,  passim. 
4  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  147. 


90  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

ammunition  which  was  approaching  Orleans  from  Paris, 
under  charge  of  the  famous  Sir  John  Fastolf.1  Fifteen 
hundred  soldiers  of  the  garrison  sallied  out  one  Friday  to 
meet  Clermont,  who  had  given  them  rendezvous  at  Rou- 
vray,  twenty-five  miles  north  of  Orleans.  Their  march 
was  made  without  interference  from  the  besiegers. 

The  rest  of  Friday,  and  all  Saturday,  the  men  of  Or- 
leans waited  for  news.  It  came  about  midnight,  when  a 
disordered  and  terrified  rabble  poured  into  the  city.  All 
had  gone  wrong.  The  soldiers  from  Orleans  came  first 
to  the  rendezvous,  and  found  themselves  face  to  face  with 
Fastolf.  The  count  of  Clermont  had  not  come  up,  and 
yet  had  forbidden  an  attack  upon  the  English  in  his  ab- 
sence. Fastolf,  a  prudent  and  experienced  soldier,  saw 
at  once  that  he  was  outnumbered,  drew  his  men  together, 
and  covered  their  front  with  his  heavy  wagons.  Still 
Clermont  did  not  appear,  and  at  last  the  impatient  sol- 
diers of  the  garrison  would  wait  no  longer.  They  could 
not  break  through  the  wagons,  but  were  thrown  into  dis- 
order and  then  cut  to  pieces  by  the  English.  Clermont 
came  up  just  in  time  to  see  the  disaster,  but,  though  his 
force  alone  outnumbered  Fastolf's,  he  fled  in  confusion 
to  Orleans.  Several  wagons,  laden  with  salt  herrings, 
made  part  of  Fastolf's  convoy,  and  so  the  fight  was  known 
as  the  battle  of  the  Herrings.2  This  was  the  battle  which 
Baudricourt  believed  that  Joan  had  announced  to  him 
on  the  very  day  it  was  fought. 

The  citizens  were  now  disheartened.  The  Bastard  was 
wounded.  Clermont's  frightened  soldiers  could  not 
be  induced  again  to  face  the  English,  and,  as  they  did 

1  This  is,  of  course,  the  Sir  John  Fastolf  of  Shakespeare's  Henry 
VI.  and  not  the  Sir  John  Falstaff  of  Henry  IV.,  though  the  names 
are  really  the  same.     When  Shakespeare  changed  the  name  of  Old- 
castle  to  Falstaff  in  Henry  IV.  he  probably  borrowed  the  name  of 
the  unpopular  Fastolf  for  the  purpose.     For  Fastolf,  see  the  Paston 
Letters. 

2  P.  iv.  119  et  seq.,  Journ.  Siege. 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  91 

nothing  but  eat  up  the  scanty  store  of  provisions,  the  cit- 
izens begged  that  they  might  be  withdrawn.  With  them 
went  many  captains,  and  even  the  bishop  of  the  city,  so 
that  the  wounded  Bastard  was  left  almost  alone.  Hope 
from  Charles  there  was  none,  and  the  men  of  Orleans  had 
recourse  to  a  strange  expedient.  An  embassy  was  sent 
to  Philip  of  Burgundy,  begging  him  to  have  mercy 
on  his  old  enemy  Duke  Charles,  and  to  take  the  city 
under  his  protection.  Weeks  must  pass  before  the 
return  of  the  embassy,  and  slowly  the  English  closed 
their  blockade.  Now  and  then  food  and  supplies  were 
still  introduced,  sent,  perhaps,  by  some  friendly  city, 
Tours  or  Albi  or  La  Rochelle.  Occasionally  a  messenger 
was  dispatched  to  the  king,  quite  uselessly,  of  course. 
His  council  spent  much  time  in  considering  whether  Dau- 
phiny  or  Spain  would  afford  him  the  safer  retreat  after 
the  fall  of  the  city.1  "All  the  citizens  and  dwellers  in 
Orleans,"  said  a  rich  burgher,  "were  come  into  such 
straits  by  reason  of  the  besiegers  that  they  knew  not  to 
whom  to  turn  for  help,  save  God  alone."2 

At  about  this  time  the  story  of  Joan's  journey  was 
brought  to  Orleans,  probably  from  Gien,  where  first  she 
had  been  able  to  speak  freely  of  her  mission.  Quite 
naturally  the  story  was  laughed  at,  but  the  condition  of 
the  city  was  too  serious  for  much  laughter,  and  the  des- 
perate people  were  ready  for  a  miracle,  since  nothing  else 
would  help  them.  The  Bastard  sent  two  of  his  officers 
to  Chinon;  they  soon  returned  to  Orleans,  the  citizens 
were  called  together,  and  the  messengers  told  their  tale.3 
The  people  began  to  take  courage  at  the  wonderful  story ; 
even  if  the  Maid  brought  them  no  miraculous  help,  at 
least  she  would  be  accompanied  by  a  good  body  of  sol- 
diers. 

For  nearly  two  months  longer  they  had  to  wait,  while 

1  P.  iv.  127,  309;  Basin,  Hist.  Charles  VII.,  i.  4. 

2  P.  iii.  24,  Luillier.  «  P.  iii.  3,  Bastard. 


92  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

their  condition  grew  worse.  Moved,  perhaps,  by  Joan's 
letter  and  a  report  of  the  proposed  expedition, 
AprU,  the  English  built  new  bastilles,  to  be  connected 
by  earthworks  which  should  completely  inclose 
the  city.  Before  these  were  finished,  however,  the  em- 
bassy returned  from  Burgundy.  For  years  the  duke 
had  been  guided  alternately  by  his  desire  to  avenge  his 
father's  murder  upon  Charles  VII.  and  his  fear  lest 
the  English  should  grow  too  strong.  At  this  moment 
the  latter  motive  prevailed,  and  he  asked  the  duke  of 
Bedford  to  raise  the  siege.  This  Bedford  refused  to  do, 
probably  for  the  reason  given  by  one  of  his  councilors, 
that  it  was  not  worth  while  to  do  the  chewing  for  Bur- 
gundy to  swallow.  Philip  thereupon  ordered  his  sub- 
jects to  withdraw  quietly  from  the  besieging  army,  and 
their  defection  weakened  the  English  so  much  that  the 
blockade  could  not  be  completed.1  It  was  still  possible, 
though  at  great  risk,  occasionally  to  bring  into  Orleans 
reinforcements  and  provisions. 

About  April  25  Joan  arrived  at  Blois,  where  had 
been  gathered  a  considerable  force  of  soldiers  and  sev- 
eral of  the  most  noted  French  captains.  There  were 
Gaucourt,  the  old  commander  of  Orleans;  Kais2  and 
Boussac,  the  two  marshals  of  France;  Culant,  the  ad- 
miral; and  La  Hire,  the  cruel  and  witty  Gascon  free- 
booter already  mentioned.  "If  God  were  to  turn  man- 
at-arms,  He  would  be  a  cut-throat,"  was  one  of  the 
sayings  which  fairly  expressed  his  notion  of  warfare. 
With  all  their  experience  these  generals  seem  to  have 
been  quite  undecided  what  to  do.  Their  forces,  joined 
to  those  of  the  garrison,  were  at  least  as  numerous  as 
those  of  the  English,3  but  after  the  recent  experience  of 

1  See  P.  iv.  146,  Journ.  Siege  ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Iviii. 

2  This  was  the  famous  Gilles  de  Rais,  by  some  supposed  to  be  the 
original  Bluebeard. 

3  See  B.  de    Molandon,    L'armee   anglaise,  134  et   seq. ;    Jarry, 


THE   SIEGE   OF   ORLEANS.  93 

Rouvray  they  hesitated  to  face  their  enemies  in  the  field. 
The  main  body  of  the  English  was  encamped  about  Or- 
leans on  the  north  side  of  the  river,  while  comparatively 
small  detachments  occupied  the  Tourelles  and  other  posts 
in  the  Sologne.  The  French  captains,  therefore,  decided 
to  march  to  Orleans  by  the  south  bank  of  the  Loire.  How 
they  were  to  cross  the  river  when  they  came  opposite  the 
city  they  seem  not  to  have  considered,  but  to  have  left 
to  the  inspiration  of  the  moment.  The  result  of  the 
expedition  made  their  plan  appear  singularly  foolish,  and 
they  were  not  inclined  to  revive  its  memory;  judged  by 
their  actions,  however,  this  was  what  they  intended  to 
do.1 

Compte  de  Varmee  anglaise,  62  ;  Loiseleur,  Compte  des  depenses,  136 
et  seq. 

1  At  the  time  of  their  departure  from  Blois,  did  the  captains  in- 
tend and  expect  to  enter  Orleans  ?  The  Bastard  (P.  iii.  5,  6)  says 
that  when  they  arrived  before  Orleans  they  considered  their  army  in- 
sufficient to  force  an  entrance  into  the  city,  and  he  implies  that  this 
was  the  reason  of  the  return  to  Blois.  His  meaning  is  not  alto- 
gether clear,  however,  and  it  may  be  that  he  meant  only  to  say  that 
the  captains  considered  their  force  insufficient  to  make  an  immediate 
attack  on  the  English  forces  as  Joan  desired.  (See  P.  iii.  78,  Beau- 
croix.)  The  Journal  du  Siege  (P.  iv.  152)  says  that  the  captains  all 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  Joan  should  not  enter  Orleans  until  night- 
fall, and  that  Rais  and  Lord,  who,  "  by  the  king's  commandment,  had 
escorted  her  thus  far,  should  return  to  Blois,  where  were  stationed 
some  French  lords  and  soldiers."  This  passage  implies,  it  seems  to 
me,  that  the  captains  had  not  intended  to  enter  Orleans  and  with  it 
agree  Cagny  (P.  iv.  5)  ;  Chron.  Puc.  (Ib.,  217,  218,  221)  ;  Monstre- 
let  (Ib.,  363)  ;  Windecken  (Ib.,  491)  ;  Aulon  (P.  iii.  210,  211), 
though  it  must  be  admitted  that  none  of  their  statements  are  quite 
free  from  ambiguity.  Among  modern  historians,  Jollois  (Hivt.  Siege, 
75)  and  apparently  B.  de  Molandon  (Premiere  Expe'd.,  38)  suppose 
that  the  captains  always  intended  to  return  to  Blois  ;  Quicherat  (Hist. 
Siege,  32),  perhaps,  takes  the  contrary  view.  That  Joan  expected  the 
army  to  enter,  there  cannot  be  the  least  doubt ;  but,  deceived  as  she 
was  by  everybody,  this  proves  little. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  probable  that  the  captains  had  no  definite  inten- 
tion of  entering  Orleans.  It  is  certain  that  in  fact  they  did  not  enter 


94  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

Joan's  theory  of  the  art  of  war  was  simple;  she  be- 
lieved it  to  consist  in  attacking  at  once  the  principal  body 
of  the  enemy.  As  the  French  intended  to  use  her  trust  in 
the  divine  favor  to  stir  up  the  enthusiasm  of  their  soldiers, 
they  did  not  tell  her  their  plans,  but,  with  the  falsehood 
that  usually  accompanies  vacillating  weakness,  they  made 
her  believe  that  Orleans  was  on  the  south  bank  of  the 
Loire,  and  so  that  the  relieving  army  was  marching  di- 
rectly to  the  city  and  against  the  English.1  There  was 
no  reason  why  Joan  should  doubt  them,  and  she  did  not. 
In  one  matter,  however,  she  would  have  her  own  way; 
she  was  waging  a  holy  war,  and  the  men  who  fought  with 
her  should  be  holy.  The  soldiers  must  go  to  confession ; 
and  they  did  so,  it  is  to  be  hoped  to  their  spiritual  ad- 
vantage. She  was  not  to  be  satisfied  with  a  bare  cere- 
monial compliance;  profane  swearing  was  conspicuous 
among  the  lesser  vices  of  La  Hire,  and  she  told  him  that 
he  must  give  it  up.  This  the  fierce  ruffian  actually  did, 
for  men  found  it  hard  to  refuse  Joan,  but  it  seems  that 
he  humorously  begged  her  to  leave  him  something  to 
swear  by.  Joan's  sense  of  humor  was  by  no  means 
wanting,  and  she  allowed  him  to  make  use  of  his  "mar- 
tin," or  baton,  for  the  purpose,  perhaps  because  the  name 
was  like  that  of  St.  Martin,  whom  the  Gascon  probably 
used  to  swear  by  in  his  milder  moods.2 

it.  Nothing  happened  during  the  expedition  which  they  could  not 
easily  have  foreseen,  and  to  suppose  that  they  intended  to  ferry  their 
men  across  the  Loire,  and  then  fight  their  way  into  the  city,  is  to 
attribute  to  them  an  energy  of  which  they  never  had  given  the  least 
sign.  Joan's  influence  was,pnly  beginning  to  be  felt. 

1  Boucher  de  Molandon  (Prem.  Ex.,  45)  supposes  that  the  decep- 
tion practiced  upon  Joan  consisted  in  telling  her,  not  that  Orleans 
was  situated  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Loire,  but  that  the  main  body 
of  the  English  was  encamped  there,  and  could  be  attacked  most  di- 
rectly by  a  march  through  the  Sologne.    The  common  opinion  agrees 
best  with  the  testimony. 

2  P.  iii.  206,  Seguiu  ;  see  iii.  32,  Compaing  ;  iv.  217,  Chron.  Puc. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE   RELIEF   OF   ORLEANS. 

ON  the  morning  of  Thursday,  April  S^1  the  army 
started  on  its  march,  three  thousand  strong,  or  April  28, 
thereabouts,  with  a  long  train  of  wagons  and  a  1429- 
considerable  drove  of  cattle.  All  the  priests  of  Blois 
went  in  procession  before  the  troops  over  the  bridge 
across  the  Loire,  chanting  the  "Veni  Creator  "  and  other 
anthems.2  Blois  is  distant  from  Orleans  about  thirty 
miles,  and  the  army  passed  one  night  in  the  fields;  for 
the  first  time  poor  Joan  had  to  sleep  in  armor,  and  was 
considerably  bruised  and  chafed.3  The  march  must  have 
been  known  to  the  English  posts  at  Meung  and  Beau- 
gency,  but  it  was  quite  unhindered,  and  about  Friday 
noon  Joan  came  upon  the  heights  of  Olivet,  two  April  29, 
miles  south  of  Orleans,  from  which  the  city  and  1429> 
the  position  of  the  besieging  army  could  be  plainly  seen. 
She  saw  how  she  had  been  deceived. 

As  the  English  made  no  motion  except  to  abandon  one 
or  two  outposts  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Loire,  the 
French  army  with  its  train  descended  from  Olivet  and 
advanced  to  the  river,  halting  a  little  above  the  city 
and  about  a  mile  from  the  nearest  corner  of  its  walls.4 
The  current  was  strong,  the  wind  blew  stiffly  down- 
stream, and  it  was  impossible  to  bring  up  the  heavy 

1  Joan  arrived  at  Orleans  on  Friday,  the  29th.     Pasquerel  (iii.  105) 
says  that  she  spent  two  nights  on  the  march,  but  this  is  improbable. 
See  P.  iv.  54,  J.  Chartier. 

2  P.  iii.  105,  Pasquerel.  «  P.  iii.  67,  Coutes. 
4  See  B.  de  Molandon,  Prem.  Ex.,  106. 


96  JOAN    OP   ARC. 

barges  needed  to  transport  men  and  provisions.  Oppo- 
site the  army,  across  the  river,  was  the  English  bastille 
of  St.  Loup.  The  absurdity  of  the  French  position  was 
evident. 

The  march  of  the  expedition  had  been  known  in  Or- 
leans, and  the  watchmen  stationed  in  the  lofty  church  tow- 
ers could  mark  its  every  movement  after  the  troops  left 
Olivet.  The  Bastard  took  boat  and  was  rowed  up-stream 
and  across  the  river  to  the  place  which  the  expedition 
had  reached.  As  he  landed  he  met  Joan,  who  was  very 
angry  at  the  trick  which  had  been  played  her. 

"Are  you  the  Bastard  of  Orleans?  "  she  asked.  (It  is 
the  Bastard  himself  who  tells  the  story.) 

"I  am,"  said  he,  "and  I  am  glad  that  you  have  come." 

"  Was  it  you  who  advised  that  I  should  come  hither 
on  this  side  of  the  river,  and  not  march  directly  against 
Talbot  and  the  English?" 

"Both  I  and  others  wiser  than  I  gave  that  advice,  be- 
lieving it  to  be  the  best  and  safest,"  answered  the  Bas- 
tard, trying  to  pacify  her. 

"In  God's  name,  the  advice  of  our  Lord  God  is  safer 
and  wiser  than  yours.  You  thought  to  deceive  me,  and 
you  rather  deceived  yourselves,  forasmuch  as  I  bring  you 
better  help  than  ever  came  to  any  captain  or  city,  the 
help  of  the  King  of  Heaven.  It  is  not  given  for  love  of 
me,  but  comes  from  God  himself,  who  at  the  prayer  of 
St.  Louis  and  St.  Charlemagne  has  had  pity  on  the  city 
of  Orleans,  and  will  not  suffer  that  enemies  shall  have 
the  body  of  the  duke  of  Orleans  and  his  city." 

"Immediately,"  continues  the  Bastard,  "and  in  a 
moment,  as  it  were,  the  wind,  which  had  been  contrary, 
and  had  greatly  hindered  the  boats  from  ascending  the 
river,  changed  and  became  favorable."1 

Taking  advantage  of  the  seeming  miracle,  the  heavy 

1  P.  iii.  6,  Bastard  ;  and  see  v.  290,  Chron.  de  V  etablissement  de  la 
fete. 


THE   BELIEF   OF    ORLEANS.  97 

barges  left  Orleans,  and  were  brought  five  miles  farther 
up  the  river  to  a  place  where  the  supplies  were  embarked 
without  danger  of  attack,  the  army  having  marched  along 
the  river-bank  to  the  same  place.  During  all  these  opera- 
tions the  English  kept  quiet,  perhaps  because  they  saw 
that  the  relieving  force  could  not  possibly  enter  Orleans, 
and  trusted  to  the  discouragement  which  would  be  caused 
by  its  retreat.  As  the  loaded  barges  went  down-stream 
to  the  city,  the  garrison  made  a  sortie  against  the  Eng- 
lish bastille  of  St.  Loup,  to  prevent  its  defenders  from 
firing  upon  the  flotilla,  and  thus  secured  the  safe  arrival 
of  the  supplies.1  » 

By  this  time  it  was  four  or  five  o'clock,  and  the  French 
prepared  to  go  back  to  Blois.  Something  may  have  been 
said  of  a  return  to  Orleans  by  way  of  the  Beauce,  but 
if  the  army  should  once  regain  Blois,  such  a  return  would 
be  a  thing  desirable  rather  than  likely.  Though  the 
Bastard  seems  to  have  approved  the  march  through  the 
Sologne,  yet  he  wished  to  get  out  of  the  expedition  some- 
thing more  than  a  fresh  supply  of  provisions.  He  had 
been  moved  by  Joan's  words  and  bearing;  he  had  seen 
her  work  a  miracle,  as  he  believed ;  and  he  begged  her  to 
enter  Orleans  with  him,  even  if  she  came  alone.  Joan 
was  much  perplexed.  She  had  come  to  Orleans  to  fight 
the  English,  and  yet  she  was  unwilling  to  lose  the  hold 
on  her  soldiers  which  she  had  gained  since  joining  them; 
they  were  good  men,  she  said,  penitent  and  confessed. 
Not  until  the  marshals  had  solemnly  assured  her  that 
they  would  recross  the  river  at  Blois,  and  would  return 
at  once  through  the  Beauce  to  Orleans ;  not  until  she  had 
sent  with  them  her  confessor  and  her  banner,  did  she 
enter  the  Bastard's  boat,  and  with  him  cross  the  river  to 

1  P.  iv.  152,  Journ.  Siege.  Contrary  to  the  opinion  of  Jollois,  Hist. 
Siege,  74,  it  seems  clear  that  the  provisions  were  brought  into  Orleans 
by  water.  See  P.  iii.  78,  Beaucroix  ;  B.  de  Molandou,  Prem.  Ex., 
53  et  seq. 


98  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Checy,  a  village  about  six  miles  above  Orleans.     With 
her,  also,  went  the  faithful  La  Hire.1 

Joan  stayed  at  Checy2  until  dusk,  so  as  to  elude  the 
English.  At  about  eight  o'clock  she  rode  into  the  city; 
and  the  story  of  her  entry,  written  by  a  citizen,  shows  to 
what  excitement  of  hope  the  people  had  already  been 
wrought.  She  was  "  in  full  armor,  mounted  on  a  white 
horse,  with  her  pennon  carried  before  her,  which  was  white, 
also,  and  bore  two  angels,  each  holding  a  lily  in  his 
hand;  on  the  pennon  was  painted  an  Annunciation.  At 
her  left  side  rode  the  Bastard  of  Orleans  in  armor,  richly 
appointed,  and  behind  her  ianie  many  other  noble  and 
valiant  lords  and  squires,  capraps  and  soldiers,  with  the 
burghers  of  Orleans  who  had  gone  out  to  escort  her.  At 
the  gate  there  came  to  meet  her  the  rest  of  the  soldiers, 
with  the  men  and  women  of  Orleans,  carrying  many 
torches,  and  rejoicing  as  if  they  had  seen  God  descend 
among  them ;  not  without  cause.  For  they  had  endured 
much  weariness  and  labor  and  pain,  and,  what  is  worse, 
great  fear  lest  they  should  never  be  succored,  but  should 
lose  both  life  and  goods.  Now  all  felt  greatly  comforted 
and,  as  it  were,  already  unbesieged,  through  the  divine 
virtue  of  which  they  had  heard  in  this  simple  maid; 
whom  they  regarded  right  lovingly,  both  men  and  women, 
and  likewise  the  little  children.  There  was  a  marvelous 
press  to  touch  her,  and  to  touch  even  the  horse  on  which 
she  rode,  while  a  torch-bearer  came  so  near  her  pennon 
that  it  was  set  afire.  Thereupon  she  struck  her  horse 
with  her  spurs  and  put  out  the  fire,  turning  the  horse 
gently  toward  the  pennon,  just  as  if  she  had  long  been  a 

1  P.  iii.  6,  Bastard  ;  Ib.,  78,  Beaucroix  ;  210,  Aulon ;    iv.  152, 
Journ.  Siege. 

2  The  Journ.  Siege,  P.  iv.   151,  says  that  Joan  passed  a  night  at 
Che'cy,  but  plainly  by  a  slip  of  the  pen,  the  author  having  intended 
to  write  another  name,  or  his  copyist  having  been  careless.     The 
night   referred  to  is  that  of  the  28th,  and  Cle"ry  is   a  reasonable 
emendation  of  the  text. 


THE    RELIEF    OF   ORLEANS.  99 

warrior,  which  the  soldiers  thought  a  very  wonderful 
thing,  and  the  burghers  also.  These  accompanied  her  the 
whole  length  of  the  city  with  right  good  cheer,  and  with 
great  honor  they  all  escorted  her  to  the  house  of  James 
Boucher,  treasurer  of  the  duke  of  Orleans,  where  she  was 
received  with  great  joy."  1 

During  her  stay  in  Orleans  Joan  lived  at  the  treas- 
urer's house.      Her   visit  made  such  a  lasting 
impression  on  the  household  that  when  Boucher   May  3, 
died,  thirteen  years  afterwards,  full  of  honors,  his      ^9' 
wife  and  children  put  upon  his  monument  an  inscription 
which  recorded  only  his  name  and  rank,  and  the  fact  that 
he  had  received  "the  Maid,  by  God's  help  the  saviour  of 
the  city,  into  his  house  as  a  revered  guest."2 

The  press  to  see  Joan  was  so  great  that  Boucher's  door 
was  almost  broken  in,  and  she  could  hardly  move  through 
the  crowded  streets  when  she  went  abroad.3  On  Tues- 
day, May  3,  she  went  in  solemn  procession  to  pray  for 
the  deliverance  of  the  city ; 4  she  often  visited  the 
churches,  and  every  day  she  heard  mass.  At  the  cathe- 
dral she  was  met  by  a  priest,  Doctor  John  of  Mascon, 
"a  very  wise  man."  "My  child,  are  you  come  to  raise 
the  siege?"  he  asked. 

"In  God's  name,  yes." 

"My  child,  they  are  strong  and  well  intrenched,  and 
it  will  be  a  great  feat  to  drive  them  out,"  said  the  wise 
man  despondently. 

"There  is  nothing  impossible  to  the  power  of  God," 
Joan  answered.  "And  throughout  the  city,"  the  chroni- 
cler adds,  "she  gave  honor  to  none  else."  It  is  recorded 
that  the  doctor  made  no  doubt  she  was  sent  by  God.5 

1  P.  iv.  152,  Journ.  Siege. 

2  B.  de   Molandon,  Jacques   Boucher,  in  Mem.  soc.  arch.  hist,  de 
I'Orleanais,  t.  xxii.  373. 

8  P.  iv.  155,  Journ.  Siege.  4  P.  v.  259. 

5  P.  v.  291,  Chron.  de  V  etaUissement  de  la  fete;  see  iii.  27,  Commy. 


100  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

It  was  Friday  night  when  Joan  entered  Orleans,  and 
on  Saturday  there  was  an  unimportant  skirmish  in 
which  she  took  no  part.  That  evening  she  sent  to  the 
English,  demanding  that  the  herald  who  had  carried 
to  them  her  summons  from  Blois  should  be  returned  to 
her.  To  this  demand  the  Bastard  added  threats  of 
retaliation.  The  herald  was  released,  and  by  him  the 
English  generals  warned  Joan  that  if  they  caught  her 
they  would  burn  her  for  a  witch  or  a  strumpet.  Her 
intense  belief  in  her  divine  mission; made  it  impossible 
for  her  to  think  that  others  would  willfully  disregard  it, 
and  so  she  went  out  to  the  \barricafle  on  the  bridge  and 
called  across  the  narrow  owning''  to  Glasdale  and  the 
garrison  of  the  Tourelles,  prpmisjmg  them  their  lives  if 
they  would  obey  God  and  surrender  at  once.  Quite 
naturally,  the  English  answered'  with  every  manner  of 
foul  taunt  and  jest;  doubtless 'tpey  believed  what  they 
were  saying.  The  next  day  Joan  made  a  like  attempt  at 
another  part  of  the  fortification^  with  a  like  result;  she 
also  spent  much  time  in  reconnoitring  the  English  posi- 
tion.1 

When  the  army  reached  Blois  on  its  return  from  Or- 
leans, some  of  its  leaders,  in  spite  of  their  promise,  pro- 
posed to  disband  it.  Either  hearing  this,  or  suspecting 
it  from  his  knowledge  of  the  men  concerned,  on  May  1 
the  Bastard  also  went  to  Blois  and  told  the  marshals  and 
the  rest  that  if  they  did  not  march  to  the  relief  of  Or- 
leans the  city  would  certainly  be  lost.  This  argument 
or  threat  settled  the  matter.  On  the  morning  of  Tues- 
day, May  3,  the  expedition  set  out  again,  this  time  by 
way  of  the  Beauce,  and,  passing  unhindered  the  Eng- 
May4,  li8^1  garrisons  of  Beaugency  and  Meung,  it  came 
1429.  before  Orleans  on  Wednesday  morning.  Its 
approach  was  known,  and  Joan  rode  out  to  meet  it  at  the 

1  See  P.  iv.  154  et  seq.,  Journ.  Siege;  Ib.,  220,  Chron  Puc. ;  iii.  26, 
Esbahy. 


THE   BELIEF    OF    ORLEANS.  101 

head  of  a  considerable  force  of  the  garrison,  intending 
to  cover  the  passage  of  the  expedition  past  the  English 
forts.  Strange  to  say,  Talbot  gave  no  sign  of  life. 
He  also  expected  reinforcements,  and  it  may  be  that  he 
preferred  to  await  them  in  the  supposed  security  of  his 
intrenchments,  rather  than  try  the  chances  of  a  pitched 
battle.  Judged  by  the  results,  his  strategy  was  unwise, 
as  it  undoubtedly  encouraged  the  French  soldiers.1 

About  five  thousand  regular  troops  were  now  gathered 
in  Orleans,  beside  several  thousand  armed  citizens. 
The  besieging  force,  it  is  probable,  hardly  equaled  that 
of  the  French  regulars,  but  so  great  was  the  English 
prestige  that  the  city  was  still  in  great  peril.2  More- 
over, the  French  resources  were  exhausted,  and  every 
man  available  was  concentrated  in  Orleans;  while  the 
regent  Bedford  was  gathering  at  Paris  a  considerable 
force  which  he  proposed  to  send  to  Talbot  under  the 
command  of  Fastolf ,  the  hero  of  the  battle  of  the  Her- 
rings. 

The  French  generals  had  no  settled  plan  of  operations, 
apparently,  and,  even  after  their  experience  of  the  week 
just  passed,  they  took  no  pains  to  inform  Joan  of  such 
plans  as  they  had.  After  she  had  watched  the  entrance 
of  the  troops  from  Blois,  she  went  back  to  Boucher's 
house.  There  she  dined,  had  a  short  interview  with  the 
Bastard,  and  then  lay  down  to  get  a  little  rest  after  the 
fatigue  of  the  morning.  Her  squire,  himself  tired  out, 
was  dozing,  when  he  was  waked  by  a  sudden  noise.  The 
streets  were  full  of  people  crying  out  that  the  English 
were  slaughtering  the  French.  Joan  was  awake  already, 
calling  for  her  horse  and  arms.  The  squire  armed  her 
as  quickly  as  possible  with  the  help  of  Madame  Boucher 

1  P.  iv.  155,  156,  Journ.  Siege;  v.  291,  Chron.  de  Vetablissement 
de  la  fete. 

2  See  B.  de  Molandon,  L'armee  anylaise,  141 ;  Loiseleur,  Compte  des 
depenses,  139. 


102  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

and  her  little  daughter.  Before  he  knew  what  she  was 
doing,  she  had  rushed  into  the  street,  had  seized  the  ban- 
ner which  her  page  handed  her  through  the  window,  had 
mounted  the  first  horse  she  found,  and,  riding  toward 

*t  o 

the  loudest  noise,  had  galloped  the  length  of  the  city  to 
the  Burgundy  gate,  on  the  east  side  of  Orleans.  She  had 
thought  that  Fastolf  was  at  hand  with  his  reinforcements, 
but  she  found  that  the  French  were  trying  to  storm  the 
fort  of  St.  Loup,  already  mentioned,  situated  on  the  north 
bank  of  the  Loire,  about  a  mile  and  a  half  above  the 
town.1 

The  assault  had  not  been  successful,  and  the  English, 
issuing  from  one  of  their  other  forts,  were  marching  to 
their  comrades'  relief.  At  the  arrival  of  Joan,  however, 
the  French  returned  to  the  attack  with  a  shout,  and 
shortly  carried  the  place,  capturing  a  large  supply  of 
provisions,  as  well  as  many  prisoners.  Seeing  that  their 
help  would  come  too  late,  the  advancing  English  with- 
drew, while  the  French,  after  demolishing  St.  Loup, 
reentered  Orleans,  well  pleased  with  the  day's  work. 
Crowds  flocked  to  the  churches  to  thank  God,  and  the 
church  bells  were  rung  joyfully,  so  that  "the  English 
might  hear ;  who  by  this  affair  were  greatly  weakened  in 
force,  and  in  courage  as  well."  The  fall  of  St.  Loup 
cleared  the  approaches  on  the  east  side  of  the  town.2 

St.  Loup  was  taken  on  Wednesday,  May  4.  Thurs- 
day was  the  feast  of  the  Ascension,  a  holy  day  on  which 
it  was  not  usual  to  fight.  After  some  debate  in  the 
council  of  war,  it  was  agreed  to  cross  the  river  on  Friday, 
and  to  attack  the  Tourelles  and  the  other  English  works 
in  the  neighborhood.  If  these  were  taken,  and  the  south 
bank  of  the  Loire  thus  cleared  of  the  English,  provisions 
and  munitions  could  be  brought  freely  into  Orleans  by 
way  of  the  Sologne,  and  the  remaining  English  forts 

1  P.  iii.  68,  Coutes  ;  212,  Aulon. 
3  P.  iv.  224,  Chron.  Puc. 


THE  RELIEF   OF   ORLEANS.  103 

north   and  west   of  the   city  in  the   Beauce  would  not 
threaten  Orleans  more  than  they  were  threatened  by  it.1 

1  The  accounts  given  by  the  various  authorities  of  the  different 
military  operations  proposed,  and  of  the  councils  of  war  held  to  con- 
sider them,  do  not  agree  in  all  respects.  The  Chron.  Puc.  (P.  iv. 
224)  asserts  that  Joan  wished  to  attack  the  English  on  Thursday  ? 
even  though  it  was  a  holiday.  The  Chron.  de  I'etablissement  de  la  fete 
(v.  292)  asserts  precisely  the  contrary,  and  with  it  agrees  the  rather 
inaccurate  eye-witness  Pasquerel  (iii.  107). 

Jean  Chartier  (P.  iv.  57)  gives  an  elaborate  account  of  a  council 
of  war  held  on  Thursday.  His  story  has  many  improbabilities.  Ac- 
cording to  it,  the  council  was  held  in  Boucher's  house,  yet  Joan  was 
not  admitted  —  a  most  unlikely  thing  to  have  happened,  as  there  were 
many  other  houses  in  Orleans  where  the  captains  could  have  met 
without  fear  of  interruption  from  Joan.  The  council  is  said  to  have 
decided  to  make  a  feint  against  the  English  positions  in  the  Beauce, 
in  order  to  draw  to  that  side  of  the  river  the  English  detachments  in 
the  Sologne,  and  so  to  weaken  the  forces  in  the  Tourelles  and  the 
Augustines,  against  which  the  real  French  attack  was  to  be  directed. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  the  main  body  of  the  English 
was  already  in  the  Beance,  and  that  an  attack  upon  it  would  not  be 
likely  to  lead  to  any  considerable  weakening  of  the  English  detach- 
ments in  the  Sologne,  at  no  time  very  strong.  Moreover,  the  English 
could  have  crossed  to  the  Sologne  rather  more  quickly  than  could 
the  French.  After  the  council  had  reached  its  conclusion,  Chartier 
tells  us,  Joan  was  admitted  and  was  informed  only  of  the  proposed 
feint,  as  if  it  were  to  be  the  serious  attack,  this  lie  being  told  her 
from  the  quite  unnecessary  fear  lest  she  should  betray  the  council's 
real  plan  to  the  English.  On  hearing  the  news,  Joan  became  at  once 
vexed,  according  to  Chartier,  though  it  is  hard  to  know  why,  since  an 
attack  upon  the  main  body  of  the  English  was  what  she  always  de- 
sired. As  soon  as  her  vexation  was  manifest,  the  whole  plan  was 
revealed  to  her,  and  she  assented  to  it  at  once.  "  However,"  as  Char- 
tier  says  quite  correctly,  "  of  Uiis  plan  no  part  was  ever  carried  out." 

The  witness  Simon  Charles,  on  the  other  hand  (iii.  116),  says 
that  the  captains  decided  to  make  no  attack  on  Friday,  but  that  Joan 
forced  open  the  city's  gate,  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  Gaucourt, 
who  was  in  command  at  that  point.  The  three  authorities  first 
named,  however,  are  only  chroniclers,  while  Charles  speaks  expressly 
from  hearsay.  I  think  there  is  some  truth  in  all  the  stories,  but  that 
the  narrators  have  confused  both  dates  and  facts. 

Some  kind  of  a  council  of  war  must  have  been  held  on  Thursday, 


104  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

On  Friday  morning,  accordingly,  both  troops  and  citi- 
May  6,  zens  passed  through  the  Burgundy  gate  and  were 
ferried  to  an  island  in  the  river  lying  near  its 
southern  bank.  From  this  place  they  crossed  to  the 
Sologne  over  an  improvised  bridge  of  boats.  One  small 
post 1  had  been  abandoned  by  the  English,  but  the 
Tourelles  confronted  them,  protected  by  its  boulevard  and 
the  fortified  convent  of  the  Augustines.  The  English 
advanced  in  force,  and  the  over-hasty  French  fell  back 
toward  the  island,  their  rear  covered  by  Gaucourt,  the 
old  governor  of  the  city.  Joan  now  came  up  with  La 

and  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement  of  the  Journ.  Siege 
(iv.  158),  that  Joan  was  present  at  it,  together  with  some  of  the 
burghers  of  Orleans.  A  plan  of  operations  was  agreed  upon  and  was 
carried  out  until  the  English  took  the  offensive,  after  the  capture 
by  the  French  of  the  bastille  of  St.  John  the  White.  According  to 
Aulon,  a  military  eye-witness,  the  French  then  determined  to  retreat 
without  doing  anything  further.  See  iii.  214.  Gaucourt  seems  to 
have  been  in  command  of  the  troops,  and  his  controversy  with  Joan 
probably  took  place  at  that  time.  On  Friday  evening,  after  the  cap- 
ture of  the  Augustines,  the  French  captains  seem  to  have  been  in- 
clined to  rest  content  with  what  they  had  accomplished,  and  at  this 
time  another  council  of  war  was  held,  to  which  Joan  probably  was 
not  invited.  According  to  Pasquerel,  an  eye-witness,  though  not  a 
very  accurate  one,  its  conclusions  were  announced  to  her  on  Friday 
evening  after  supper,  by  a  valiant  and  notable  soldier,  whose  name 
Pasquerel  could  not  remember.  See  iii.  108.  Joan  thereupon  de- 
clared that  she  would  not  consent  to  postpone  offensive  operations, 
and  she  seems  to  have  gained  a  somewhat  reluctant  consent  from  the 
captains  to  renew  the  fight  on  Saturday.  Apparently  there  were 
difficulties  and  misunderstandings  even  on  Saturday  morning.  Coutes, 
Joan's  page,  says  that  the  keepers  of  the  Burgundy  gate  hesitated  to 
let  her  pass  through  it  to  the  river.  iii.  70.  If  the  controversy 
with  Gaucourt,  described  by  Simon  Charles,  really  took  place  at  one 
of  the  city's  gates,  it  must  have  been  on  Saturday  morning,  and  not 
on  Friday. 

For  further  evidence  of  disagreement  between  Joan  and  the  cap- 
tains, see  iii.  32,  Farciaulx;  79,  Beaucroix ;  215,  Aulon;  iv.  7,  Cagny; 
227,  Chron.  Puc.j  v.  293,  Chron.  de  Vetablissement  de  la  fete. 

1  St.  John  the  White. 


THE   RELIEF    OF    ORLEANS.  105 

Hire.  Gaucourt  forbade  them  to  advance,  but  they  would 
not  be  checked,  and  together  they  charged  upon  the  Eng- 
lish, lance  in  hand.  All  were  ashamed  to  remain  behind; 
the  English  gave  way,  and  the  tide  of  battle  flowed  back 
to  the  walls  of  the  Augustines.  Here  the  English  stood 

o  o 

their  ground  and  fought  bravely,  but  the  enthusiasm  of 
attack  was  with  the  French.  Knights  who  had  been  ene- 
mies vied  with  each  other  in  feats  of  valor.  A  tall  Eng- 
lishman who  stoutly  defended  the  gate  was  at  last  shot 
down  by  the  facetious  gunner,  John  of  Lorraine,  and 
the  French  rushed  in  unchecked,  while  the  English  re- 
treated to  the  boulevard  of  the  Tourelles,  an  earthwork 
connected  by  a  drawbridge  with  the  pier  upon  which  the 
Tourelles  itself  was  built.  For  fear  that  the  French  should 
fall  into  disorder  while  plundering  the  English  quarters, 
Joan  caused  the  buildings  of  the  Augustines  to  be  set  on 
fire.1 

That  very  afternoon  an  attack  was  made  upon  the 
boulevard,  but  it  failed.  The  men  of  Orleans  saw  plainly 
that  the  real  struggle  would  come  on  the  next  day,  and 
all  through  the  night  they  labored  to  bring  bread  and 
wine  to  the  soldiers  who  slept  on  the  field.2  Together 
with  most  of  the  captains,  Joan  returned  to  Orleans.3 
The  citizens  had  now  come  to  trust  her  implicitly,  and 
they  were  afraid  lest  the  captains  should  rest  content 
with  what  had  been  done  already.  Their  fears  were  well 
founded.  Soon  after  supper  one  of  the  French  leaders 
came  to  the  treasurer's  house  to  tell  Joan  that  a  council 
of  war  had  been  held,  in  which  the  captains  had  decided 
that  their  forces  were  much  inferior  to  the  English,  and 

1  P.  iv.  227,  Chron.  Puc.  •  365,  Monstrelet. 

2  Vergnaud-Romane'si,  Me'moire  sur  les  depenses  faites  par  les  Orlean- 
ais,  10. 

3  In  spite  of  the  testimony  of  Aulon,  P.  iii.  215,  and  the  account 
of  Jean  Chartier,  iv.  60.     See  Pasquerel,  iii.  108,  and  124,  Colette 
Milet.     Their  testimony  is  very  circumstantial.     See,  also,  iv.  227, 
Chron.  Puc. ;  365,  Monstrelet. 


106  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

that  God  had  greatly  favored  them  in  what  they  had 
already  accomplished.  "  Considering  that  the  city  is  now 
fully  supplied  with  food,"  he  went  on,  "we  can  well 
afford  to  guard  the  town  closely,  and  to  wait  for  rein- 
forcements from  the  king.  It  does  not  seem  best  to  the 
council  that  we  should  fight  to-morrow." 

"You  have  been  in  your  council,"  Joan  replied,  "and 
I  have  been  in  mine,  and  you  m£y  believe  that  the  coun- 
sel of  my  Lord  shall  hold  and  shall  be  accomplished, 
while  councils  of  your  sort  shall  come  to  naught.  Get 
up  early  to-morrow  morning,  fight  your  best,  and  you 
shall  do  more  than  you  did  to-day." l 

The  captains  were  staggered  by  her  assurance.  Over 
some  of  them  she  had  gained  great  influence,  and  they 
had  not  been  unanimous  in  putting  off  the  final  struggle 
with  the  English.  Moreover,  the  burghers  were  furious 
at  the  thought  of  delay.  They  remonstrated  with  the 
generals,  and,  as  if  their  exhortations  were  needed,  begged 
Joan  to  lead  the  attack.2  For  seven  weary  months  the 
English  had  lain  at  their  gates,  while  they  had  been  fed 
with  broken  promises  by  the  king  and  his  councilors. 
To  them  it  seemed  madness  not  to  take  advantage  of  the 
succor  sent  them  by  Heaven.  Assailed-~on  every  side, 
the  council  of  war  at  last  recalled -its'  decision. 

During  the  operations  of  Friday,  the  main  body  of  the 
English,  encamped  to  the  west  of  Orleans,  had  been 
strangely  quiet.  On  Friday  night  Talbot  tried  to  send  a 
small  body  of  men  across  the  river,  apparently  without 
much  success,  for  the  boats  were  upset,  and  some  of  the 
men  were  drowned,  as  the  French  found  out  years  after- 
ward by  fishing  up  their  armor  from  the  river-bed.3 

1  P.  iii.  108,  Pasquerel. 

2  See  P.  v.  293,  Chron.  de  V  etdblissement  de  la  fete.     It  is  doubtful 
if  this  account  is  by  an  eye-witness,  but  see  Boucher  de  Molandon's 
edition  of  the  chronicle. 

3  P.  v.  293,  Chron.  de  V  etdblissement  de  la  fete. 


THE   BELIEF    OF    OKLEANS.  107 

Probably  Talbot  believed  that  the  Tourelles  could  hold 
out  against  any  attack,  but  there  was  another  cause  for 
his  indecision.  By  this  time  the  English  knew  quite  as 
well  as  did  the  French  that  some  one  had  come  to  Orleans 
asserting  a  power  to  raise  the  siege.  Angel  or  witch,  they 
stood  in  awe  of  her,  for  they  could  see  that  her  coming 
had  made  the  French  soldiers  new  men. 

On  Saturday  morning  Joan  rose  early.     Her  success 
of  the  day  before,  and  the  exhilaration  of  actual   May  7, 
encounter  with  the  English  after  so  many  weeks   1429' 
of  waiting,  gave  her  good  spirits.     They  brought  her  a 
shad  for  breakfast,  but  she  was  already  on  horseback. 
"Keep  it  for  to-night,"  she  said,  "and  I  will  bring  back 
a  '  goddam  '  with  me  to  eat  his  share ;  and  I  shall  come 
back  across  the  bridge." 1 

When  she  and  the  captains  reached  the  field,  the  as- 
sault began  on  the  boulevard  which  covered  the  Tourelles. 
Its  captains  understood  that  they  must  make  good  their 
defense  without  help  from  Talbot;  this  they  were  ready 
to  do,  boasting  that  they  could  hold  out  a  fortnight 
against  the  power  of  France  and  England  combined. 
The  walls  of  the  boulevard  were  high  and  strong,  the 
garrison  was  as  large  as  the  place  would  allow,  and  amply 
provided  with  cannon  and  small  arms.2  The  French 
planted  their  scaling-ladders,  and  climbed  them  so  bravely 
that,  "to  judge  by  their  gallant  bearing,  they  thought 
themselves  immortal;"3  the  English  hurled  them  down 
into  the  ditch  with  axes,  clubs,  and  gunshot,  sometimes 
grappling  with  them  hand  to  hand.  At  the  other  side  of 
the  Tourelles  the  French  kept  up  a  constant  fire  across 
the  opening  in  the  bridge.  In  spite  of  their  gallantry, 
by  midday  the  assailants  had  accomplished  nothing. 

1  P.  iii.  124,  Colette  Milet. 

2  See  iv.  365,  Monstrelet ;  Rel.  ined.,  27;  iii.  94,  Alencjon ;  iv.  8, 
Cagny  ;  159,  Journ.  Siege ;  493,  Wiudecken  ;  v.  134. 

3  P.  iv.  160,  Journ.  Siege. 


108  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Early  in  the  afternoon  Joan,  who  had  been  in  the  thick 
of  the  fight,  encouraging  the  soldiers,  seized  a  ladder  and 
set  it  against  the  wall  of  the  boulevard.  As  she  was 
about  to  climb  up,  an  arrow  struck  her  between  the  neck 
and  the  shoulder.  The  wound  was  several  inches  deep, 
and  she  was  carried  at  once  to  the  rear,  where  her  armor 
was  taken  off.  Though  she  had  expected  to  be  hurt,1  yet 
she  cried  out  for  a  moment  at  the  physical  pain,  as  any 
brave  girl  might  do.  When,  however,  those  who  crowded 
about  her  tried  to  put  charms  on  the  wound,  she  would 
not  allow  them  to  do  so,  saying  that  the  thing  was  a  sin. 
The  wound  was  dressed  with  olive  oil;  she  was  armed 
again,  and  returned  to  the  field.2 

The  Bastard  and  the  other  captains  were  discouraged. 
From  early  morning  until  late  in  the  day  they  had  been 
fighting,  and  had  not  won  a  foot  of  ground.  The  Bas- 
tard himself,  though  brave  and  un wounded,  "had  had 
enough  of  it,"  as  he  afterwards  said,  and  wished  the  army 
to  retire  into  the  city.  The  trumpets  sounded  retreat. 
"And  then  the  said  Maid  came  to  me,"  so  the  Bastard 
himself  testified,  "and  begged  me  to  wait  yet  a  little 
longer.  She  thereupon  mounted  her  horse,  and  withdrew 
alone  into  a  vineyard  at  some  distance  from  the  crowd, 
in  which  vineyard  she  remained  in  prayer  for  about  half 
a  quarter  of  an  hour ;  then,  having  come  back  from  that 
place,  at  once  she  took  her  pennon  in  her  hands,  and 
posted  herself  at  the  edge  of  the  ditch."3 

The  battle  began  again.  Beside  the  attack  on  the 
boulevard,  some  of  the  garrison  and  citizens  threw  beams 

1  P.  i.  79,  J.'s  test. ;  iv.  426.     There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  that 
Joan  announced  beforehand  that  she  should  be  wounded,  as  there 
exists  an  abstract  of  a  letter  which  mentions  the  prediction,  and  was 
written  April  22.     Joan's  expectation  of  injury  made  not  the  least 
difference  in  her  actions. 

2  P.  i.  79,  J.'s  test.  ;  iii.  8,  Bastard  ;  70,  Coutes  ;  109,  Pasquerel  ; 
iv.  61,  J.  Chartier  ;  160,  Journ.  Siege;  228,  Chron.Puc. 

3  P.  iii.  8. 


THE   RELIEF   OF    ORLEANS.  109 

and  gutters  from  pier  to  pier  across  the  opening  which 
had  been  made  in  the  bridge  on  the  town-ward  side  of 
the  Tourelles,  until  they  reached  the  Tourelles  itself. 
"It  was  a  hard  thing,"  says  a  chronicler  of  Orleans,  "to 
make  these  temporary  bridges,  inasmuch  as  the  English 
had  built  fortifications  strong  and  well  placed;  but  God 
was  in  all  the  work,  and  so,  when  any  man  began  to 
labor  he  became  a  skillful  workman,  as  if  he  had  been 
brought  up  to  the  trade.  The  citizens  loaded  a  great 
skiff  with  firewood  and  bones,  with  old  leather  and  sul- 
phur, and  the  most  stinking  things  that  could  be  found. 
This  boat  was  brought  between  the  Tourelles  and  the 
boulevard,  and  there  was  set  afire,  which  much  distressed 
the  English ;  and  besides,  though  they  had  the  best  can- 
non in  the  world,  yet  a  man  could  have  thrown  a  shot  as 
hard  as  their  cannons  did,  which  was  a  fine  miracle."1 

The  fortune  of  the  fight  turned.  The  English  powder 
had  given  out,  and  the  English  soldiers,  struggling 
against  great  odds,  and  exhausted  by  the  length  and 
ferocity  of  the  battle,  were  dismayed  by  the  reappearance 
of  Joan,  who,  as  they  thought,  had  been  killed  or  dis- 
abled. As  the  French  fought  about  her,  close  to  the 
ditch,  some  of  them  saw  a  white  cloud  float  above  her 
pennon,  while  to  others  the  pennon  seemed  to  change  its 
direction  and  to  reach  out  toward  the  wall.  At  that 
moment  she  cried  to  them,  "In$o  the  fort,  children;  in 
God's  name  they  are  ours."  "And  never,"  so  says  the 
same  chronicler,  "was  seen  flock  of  birds  lighting  on  a 
hedge  as  thick  as  were  the  French  climbing  up  the  said 
boulevard."2 

Though  the  boulevard  was  lost,  the  English  kept  their 
discipline  and  fell  back  across  the  drawbridge  into  the 

1  P.  v.  293,  Chron.  de  Vetablissement  de  la  fete. 

2  P.  v.  294,  Chron.  de  V  e'tablissement  de  la  fete.     According  to  a 
popular  story,  one  of  the  garrison  said  that  it  seemed  to  him  as  if  the 
whole  world  was  gathered  to  the  attack.    P.  iv.  1G3. 


110  JOAN   OP   ARC. 

Tourelles,  William  Glasdale,  their  captain,  covering  their 
rear.  The  fire,  however,  had  spread  from  the  fire-boat 
to  the  drawbridge,  and  this  broke  under  the  great  weight, 
carrying  down  Glasdale  and  many  of  his  soldiers,  who 
were  drowned  in  their  heavy  armor.  Further  resistance 
was  out  of  the  question,  and  the  remnant  of  the  English 
force  which  had  reached  the  Tourelles  in  safety  surren- 
dered at  once.1  More  planks  were  hastily  thrown  across 
the  gaps  in  the  bridge  on  both  sides  of  the  Tourelles,  and 
Joan  rode  back  into  the  city  through  the  fort  and  across 
the  bridge,  as  she  had  foretold  that  very  morning.  "All 
the  bells  of  the  city  began  to  ring  out,  and  the  people  to 
praise  and  thank  the  Lord."2 

The  capture  of  the  Tourelles  made  untenable  the  posi- 
tion of  Talbot  and  his  troops  in  the  forts  west  of  Orleans. 
The  English  forces  which,  even  before  the  attack  on  St. 
Loup,  were  on  the  whole  inferior  to  the  French,  had  suf- 
fered much  more  severely  in  the  battles  of  Wednesday, 
Friday,  and  Saturday,  though  the  French  losses  had  been 
considerable.  Instead  of  a  besieger,  Talbot  might  at  any 
moment  find  himself  besieged.  The  French,  moreover, 
lately  discouraged,  were  now  ready  to  dare  anything, 
while  the  English  soldiers  were  more  than  half  inclined 
to  believe  that  supernatural  forces,  either  of  heaven  or 
hell,  were  arrayed  against  them.  Without  haste  and  in 
good  order  Talbot  prepared  to  retreat. 

On  Sunday  morning  Joan,  still  weak  from  her  wound, 
May  8,  put  on  a  coat  of  armor  lighter  than  that  she 
1429>  had  worn,  and,  with  the  Bastard  and  the  rest, 
marched  out  of  the  west  gate  against  the  English  forts. 
Before  them  they  saw  the  English  army,  drawn  up  by 
Talbot  in  order  of  battle.  The  confident  French  soldiers 

1  In  addition  to  the  authorities  already  cited,  see  P.  iii.  25,  Luil- 
lier ;  80,  Beaucroix  ;  216,  Aulon.  Glasdale's  body  was  embalmed 
and  taken  to  Paris,  where  it  lay  in  the  church  of  St.  Mary.  It  was 
buried  in  England.  P.  iv.  463,  Journ.  Bourg. 

8  P.  iv.  62,  J.  Chartier. 


THE   BELIEF   OF   ORLEANS.  Ill 

were  eager  to  attack,  but  Joan  restrained  them.  "If 
they  attack  you,"  she  said,  "fight  bravely  like  men,  and 
you  will  get  the  better  of  them,  but  do  not  begin  the 
battle."  She  then  sent  for  a  priest  and  bade  him  cele- 
brate mass  in  front  of  the  army.  When  one  mass  was 
over,  she  bade  him  celebrate  another,  "  both  of  which  she 
and  all  the  soldiers  heard  with  great  devotion."  "Now 
look,"  she  said,  "and  see  if  their  faces  are  set  toward 
us."  They  told  her  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  English 
had  turned  their  backs,  and  were  retreating  toward 
Meung.  "In  God's  name,  they  are  gone,"  said  she. 
"Let  them  escape,  and  let  us  go  and  praise  God,  and 
follow  them  no  farther,  since  this  is  Sunday."  "Where- 
upon," says  a  chronicler,  "the  Maid  with  the  other  lords 
and  soldiers  returned  to  Orleans  witfy  great  joy,  to  the 
great  triumph  of  all  the  clergy  and  people,  who  with  one 
accord  returned  to  our  Lord  humble  thanks  and  praises 
well  deserved  for  the  victory  he  had  given  them  over  the 
English,  the  ancient  enemies  of  this  realm."1 

Another  chronicler  of  Orleans,  writing  about  thirty 
years  after  the  siege,  gives  an  account  of  the  foundation 
of  the  festival  of  the  eighth  of  May.  "My  lord  the 
bishop  of  Orleans,  and  my  lord  of  Dunois  [the  Bastard], 
brother  of  my  lord  the  duke  of  Orleans,  with  the  duke's 
advice,  as  well  as  the  burghers  and  inhabitants  of  the  said 
Orleans,  ordered  that  on  the  eighth  of  May  there  should 
be  a  procession  of  people  carrying  candles,  which  proces- 
sion should  march  as  far  as  the  Augustines,  and,  wherever 
the  fight  had  raged,  there  a  halt  should  be  made  and  a  suit- 
able service  should  be  had  in  each  place  with  prayer.  We 
cannot  give  too  much  praise  to  God  and  the  Saints,  since 
all  that  was  done  was  done  by  God's  grace,  and  so,  with 
great  devotion,  we  ought  to  take  part  in  the  said  proces- 

1  P.  iii.  9,  Bastard  ;  29,  Champeaux  ;  80,  Beaucroix ;  110,  Pas- 
querel  ;  217,  Aulon  ;  iv.  9,  Cagny  ;  62,  J.  Chartier ;  163,  Journ. 
Siege;  366,  Monstrelet. 


112  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

sion.  Even  the  men  of  Bourges  and  of  certain  other  cities 
celebrate  the  day,  because,  if  Orleans  had  fallen  into  the 
hands  of  the  English,  the  rest  of  the  kingdom  would  have 
taken  great  harm.  Always  remembering,  therefore,  the 
great  mercy  which  God  has  shown  to  the  said  city  of 
Orleans,  we  ought  always  to  maintain  and  never  to  aban- 
don this  holy  procession,  lest  we  fall  into  ingratitude, 
whereby  much  evil  may  come  upon  us.  Every  one  is 
obliged  to  join  the  said  procession,  carrying  a  lighted 
candle  in  his  hand.  It  passes  round  about  the  town  in 
front  of  the  church  of  our  Lady  of  Saint  Paul,  at  which 
place  they  sing  praises  to  our  Lady ;  and  it  goes  thence 
to  the  cathedral,  where  the  sermon  is  preached,  and  there- 
after a  mass  is  sung.  There  are  also  vigils  at  Saint 
Aignan  and,  on  the  morrow,  a  mass  for  the  dead.  All 
men,  therefore,  should  be  bidden  to  praise  God  and  to 
thank  Him ;  for  at  the  present  time  there  are  youths  who 
can  hardly  believe  that  the  thing  came  about  in  this  wise ; 
you,  however,  should  believe  that  this  is  a  true  thing, 
and  is  verily  the  great  grace  of  God." J 

The  fears  of  the  pious  chronicler  have  not  been  real- 
ized. Three  hundred  years  ago  the  ancient  walls  of 
Orleans  were  outgrown,  and  even  the  walls  which  took 
their  place  have  lately  been  leveled  into  modern  boule- 
vards; the  cathedral  fell  a  prey  to  the  Huguenots,  and 
has  since  been  rebuilt ;  in  the  middle  of  the  last  century 
the  old  bridge  was  pulled  down,  and,  by  a  change  in  the 
river's  course,  the  southern  end  of  it,  where  the  Tou- 
relles  stood,  has  now  become  dry  land ;  but  almost  with- 
out interruption  the  procession  has  gone  on  for  more  than 
four  hundred  and  fifty  years'.  The  priests  still  march 
through  the  streets  of  the  city,  halt  in  the  busy  square 
across  the  river  where  the  boulevard  of  the  Tourelles  was 
stormed,  and  return  to  the  cathedral  for  the  Te  Deum 
and  for  a  sermon  on  Joan  of  Arc. 

1  P.  v.  296,  Chron.  de  I'etablissement  de  la  fete. 


THE  RELIEF   OF   ORLEANS.  113 

In  1456,  rather  more  than  twenty -five  years  after  the 
siege,  some  thirty  men  and  women  of  Orleans,  all  eye- 
witnesses, were  examined  concerning  Joan's  conduct  dur- 
ing her  stay  in  the  city.  "And  in  this  they  all  agreed," 
so  runs  the  minute  of  their  depositions,  "that  they  had 
never  perceived  by  any  means  whatever  that  the  said 
Joan  set  to  the  glory  of  her  own  valor  the  deeds  that  she 
had  done,  but  rather  ascribed  everything  to  God,  and,  as 
far  as  she  was  able,  prevented  the  people  from  honoring 
her  or  giving  her  the  glory ;  for  she  preferred  to  be  alone 
and  solitary  rather  than  to  be  in  men's  company,  unless 
that  was  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  war."1  "Never 
was  seen  the  like  of  the  deeds  that  you  do,"  so  the  people 
told  her;  "in  no  book  can  such  wonders  be  read."  Joan 
answered,  "  My  Lord  has  a  book  in  which  no  clerk  ever 
read,  were  he  never  so  clerkly."2 

1  P.  iii.  31.  '    z  P.  iii.  110,  Pasquerel. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  LOIRE.  —  JARGEAU. 

JOAN'S  victory  before  Orleans  had  a  great  effect.1 
May  8-  The  French  regained  the  natural  courage  which 
22, 1429.  their  many  defeats  and  misfortunes  had  shaken, 
and  the  English,  both  leaders  and  soldiers,  lost  much  of 
the  boastful  confidence  which  their  repeated  successes  had 
almost  justified.  The  effect  was  not  confined  to  the  ar- 
mies on  the  Loire.  Once  a  day,  or  oftener,  hard-riding 
messengers  brought  the  news  from  Orleans  to  Chinon, 
and  the  king  sent  it  on  to  all  parts  of  France,  calling  the 
attention  of  his  subjects  to  his  own  "continual  diligence 
in  giving  all  possible  aid  to  the  city."2  Talbot  at  once 
informed  Bedford  of  his  retreat,  and  the  regent,  who 
knew  well  the  uncertain  loyalty  of  his  French  subjects, 
recognized  the  danger  caused  by  such  a  loss  of  prestige.3 

Talbot  and  Bedford  and  the  English  captains  and  sol- 
diers, however,  were  neither  disheartened  nor  demoral- 
ized, and  they  had  no  intention  of  giving  up  the  strong 
places  about  Orleans  which  they  had  taken  in  the  summer 
and  autumn  of  1428.  The  main  body  of  the  English 
army  had  not  yet  met  Joan  in  battle,  and  its  retreat  on 
Sunday  morning  had  been  made  in  good  order,  with  small 

1  A  Burgundian  chronicler  says  that  "  throughout  France  fools 
and  simple  folks  called  her  the  Angelic."      Livre  des  Trahisons,  in 
Chron.  Belg.  ined.,  ii.  197. 

2  P.  v.  100  ;  see  Rel.  ined.,  28. 

8  See  P.  iv.  233,  Chron.  Puc.  •  369,  Monstrelet ;  451,  Fauquem- 
berque  ;  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  95  ;  Lefevre  Pontalis,  Panique  an- 
ylaise  en  mai,  1429. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   THE   LOIKE.  115 

loss,  except  of  siege  artillery.1  Talbot  and  the  larger 
part  of  his  troops  took  up  their  position  at  Meung  and 
Beaugency,  below  Orleans,  while  Suffolk  with  five  or  six 
hundred  soldiers  was  sent  up  the  river  to  Jargeau. 
Smaller  detachments  garrisoned  the  towns  between  Or- 
leans and  Paris.2 

This,  then,  was.  the  state  of  affairs.  At  Orleans,  the 
northernmost  point  of  the  semicircular  sweep  of  the 
Loire,  the  French  had  a  strong  fortress  on  the  north 
bank  of  the  river,  with  a  fortified  tete  du  pont  on  the 
south  bank.  Between  Gien,  thirty  miles  up-stream,  and 
Blois,  almost  as  far  below,  this  was  the  only  place  at 
which  they  could  cross  the  river.  Some  ten  miles  above 
Orleans,  Suffolk  held  Jargeau  for  the  English  with  the 
only  bridge  between  Orleans  and  Gien.3  Ten  miles  be- 
low Orleans,  Talbot's  troops  held  Meung  with  its  forti- 
fied bridge ;  at  Beaugency,  five  miles  below  Meung,  was 
still  another,  covered  by  the  strong  citadel  of  the  place. 
The  next  bridge  was  at  Blois.  Orleans  was  thus  a 
French  outpost  on  the  only  road  by  which  the  French 
could  march  north  into  a  country  full  of  English  for- 
tresses, or  could  retreat  from  that  country  south  across 
the  Loire.  The  English,  on  the  other  hand,  in  marching 
south,  could  cross  the  Loire  above  or  below  Orleans, 
ravage  at  will  the  country  held  by  the  French,  cut  off 
any  force  approaching  or  leaving  the  city,  and  then  re- 
cross  the  river  at  any  one  of  three  places  they  might 
choose.4  Repulsed  for  the  time,  they  had  no  notion  of 
giving  up  these  advantages,  and  Bedford  hastened  to 
bring  to  Paris  from  all  quarters  another  army  which 

1  See  P.  iv.  233,  Chrm.  Puc. 

2  See  P.  iv.  10,  44,  170,  233,  368. 

3  It  is  just  possible  that  there  was  a  bridge  at  Sully,  which  place 
was  soon  given  up  to  the  French.     See  Viollet  le  Due,  Diet.  Arch., 
Lii.  161  ;  Godefroy,  Hist.  Charles  VII.,  376. 

4  Jargeau,  Meuug,  Beaugency. 


116  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

should  reinforce  Talbot  and  enable  that  general  to  re- 
sume the  offensive.1 

Notwithstanding  the  success  of  the  French  arms,  and 
the  high  spirit  of  the  troops  and  of  the  citizens  of  Or- 
leans, the  inferior  discipline  and  organization  of  the 
French  army  kept  it  from  following  Talbot  in  his  retreat. 
There  was  lack  of  provisions  and  money,  the  troops  were 
dispersing,  and  Joan  had  to  go  back  to  the  king  for  help, 
as  well  as  in  order  to  urge  his  setting  out  for  consecra- 
tion at  Rheims.  On  Monday  or  Tuesday,  accordingly, 
she  left  Orleans,  with  Rais  and  other  captains,  and  rode 
to  Blois,  where  she  passed  a  day  or  two.  The  Bastard 
seems  to  have  remained  at  Orleans  with  a  small  force.2 

Since  his  return  from  Poitiers  with  Joan,  Charles 
VII.  had  kept  himself  safe  at  Chinon,  but  immediately 
after  the  relief  of  Orleans  he  came  to  Tours,  and  there 
met  Joan  on  Wednesday  or  Thursday.3  She  had  shown 
the  sign  which  she  had  promised,  and  had  accomplished 
the  first  part  of  her  mission.  To  her  there  seemed  no 
reason  for  further  hesitation  in  going  forward  with  the 
second  part  of  the  same  mission,  the  march  to  Rheims 
and  the  consecration  of  the  Dauphin.4  If  it  was  desirable 
to  retake  the  towns  which  the  English  still  held  in  the 
valley  of  the  Loire,  she  was  willing  to  go  against  them 
provided  they  were  attacked  at  once,  and  provided  that 
their  capture  was  meant  only  as  the  first  step  in  the  expe- 
dition to  Rheims.5 

The  plans  of  the  royal  council,  for  the  poor  king  had 
none  of  his  own,  were  not  so  simple.  From  this  time 
forward  the  division  of  parties  at  court  grew  more  marked, 

1  See  P.  iv.  233,  Chron.  Puc. ;  368,  Monstrelet. 

2  P.  iii.  80,  Beaucroix ;  iv.  165, 167,  Journ.  Siege;  234,  Chron.  Puc. 

3  Charles  is  said  to  have  greeted  her  warmly.    Rev.  Hist.  t.  xix.  61. 

4  Charles  had  talked  about  going  to  Rheims  as  early  as  1423. 
Beaucourt,  ii.  59. 

6  P.  iv.  497,  Windecken  ;  v.  101,  119,  258;  Les  la  Tremoille,  188. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   THE   LOIRE.  117 

week  by  week,  and  almost  day  by  day.  La  Tremoille, 
the  master  of  the  wretched  Charles,  had  allowed  the  ex- 
pedition to  Orleans.  He  was  not  unwilling  that  the  city 
should  be  relieved,  if  this  could  be  done  without  danger 
to  his  own  power;  but  the  completeness  of  Joan's  victory 
had  aroused  his  opponents,  and  the  awakening  of  French 
patriotism  threatened  his  overthrow.  He  represented  no 
considerable  class  in  the  community,  and  had  no  support 
from  any  of  the  great  forces  of  mediaeval  France.  The 
cities  suffered  from  the  excesses  allowed  by  his  misrule; 
the  clerical  officers,  the  bureaucracy,  dreaded  his  violence 
and  were  aghast  at  his  rapacity  and  at  the  financial  dis- 
tress which  it  caused;  the  great  nobles  hated  him  be- 
cause he  kept  them  out  of  power.  Himself  a  nobleman 
of  some  importance,  he  was  the  head  of  a  small  party  of 
political  and  military  adventurers,  which  was  likely  to 
be  overthrown  at  the  appearance  of  any  strong  man,  or 
by  any  great  outburst  of  popular  feeling.  Only  so  long 
as  things  went  on  as  before,  in  aimless  negotiation  with 
the  duke  of  Burgundy,  in  petty  military  expeditions,  in 
universal  jealousy,  and  in  private  war  between  the  nom- 
inal supporters  of  Charles,  could  La  Tremoille  govern 
France.  A  real  victory,  a  successful  campaign,  brought 
him  into  great  danger. 

Joan's  strongest  support  had  come  from  Yolande  of 
Anjou  and  from  the  duke  of  Alencjon,  both  of  whom 
were  friendly  to  La  Tremoille 's  enemies.  Though  they 
had  not  quarreled  openly  with  the  favorite,  they  both 
recognized  that  the  hearty  support  of  all  loyal  Frenchmen 
was  needed  to  defeat  the  English,  and,  besides,  they  were 
themselves  closely  allied  by  blood  or  marriage  with  the 
great  nobles  whom  La  Tremoille  tried  to  keep  away  from 
court.  There  were  still  stronger  reasons  for  the  favor- 
ite's anxiety.  His  greatest  rival  was  his  former  patron, 
the  constable,  Arthur  of  Brittany,  count  of  Richemont. 
For  many  months  he  had  spent  the  royal  treasure  in 


118  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

private  war  with  Richemont,  and  by  every  means  had 
sought  to  keep  him  from  Charles's  presence.  Both  Riche- 
mont and  the  duke  of  Brittany  were  uncles  of  Alenc,on, 
brothers  of  the  dowager  duchess  who  had  received  Joan 
so  kindly  at  St.  Florent.  The  constable  began  to  gather 
an  army,  and  Duke  John,  a  pious  prince,  sent  his  con- 
fessor to  see  Joan  and  to  make  inquiries  about  her.1  La 
Tremoille  became  very  uneasy. 

A  fortnight  or  so  was  spent  in  debate  at  Tours;  then 
the  court  moved  to  Loches,  some  thirty  miles  away,  a 
May  22-  grim  fortress,  better  suited  to  Charles's  humor 
31, 1429.  ^-j]an  a  jarge  city.2  As  Joan  rode  into  the  place 
the  people  crowded  about  her  horse  and  tried  to  kiss  her 
hands  and  feet.  A  churchman,  the  abbot  who  had  exam- 
ined her  at  Poitiers,  blamed  her  for  allowing  these  mani- 
festations, and  told  her  to  keep  herself  from  like  things 
because  she  was  making  the  people  idolaters.  "In  truth," 
she  answered,  "I  should  not  know  how  to  guard  myself 
from  these  things,  unless  God  guarded  me."3 

By  this  time  she  must  have  discovered  that  churchmen 
were  not  her  only  enemies.  As  yet  she  did  not  realize 
the  state  of  parties  in  the  royal  council,  but  she  knew 
that  time  was  being  wasted,  and  that  even  the  sign  she 
had  just  given  at  Orleans  had  not  removed  all  doubts. 
Things  were  not  going  well  in  the  field.  The  Bastard 
had  led  a  considerable  force  against  Jargeau  without 
waiting  for  Joan,  and,  after  some  skirmishing,  had  found 
it  wise  to  retreat,  as  the  waters  of  the  Loire  were  high 
and  filled  the  ditches  about  the  town.4  Still  the  coun- 
cil hesitated,  and  discussed  many  plans.  After  about  a 
week's  stay  in  Loches  the  king  was  closeted  one  day  with 
his  confessor  and  two  other  members  of  his  council, 

1  P.  iv.  316,  Gruel ;  Lobineau,  Hist.  Bretagne,  i.  580. 

2  P.  iv.  497,  Windecken.    Charles  was  at  Loches,  May  22.    Beau- 
court,  iii.  516. 

3  P.  iii.  84,  Barbin.  *  P.  iv.  167,  Journ.  Siege. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   THE   LOIRE.  119 

Robert  le  Macron  and  Christopher  of  Harcourt.  Accom- 
panied by  the  Bastard,  who  was  come  to  Loches,  Joan 
knocked  at  the  door  of  the  king's  apartments.  As  soon 
as  she  came  into  the  room,  she  knelt  before  Charles,  and 
said  to  him,  clasping  his  knees:  "Noble  Dauphin,  do  not 
hold  so  many  and  so  lengthy  councils,  but  come  at  once 
to  Kheims  and  take  the  crown  which  is  yours."  Har- 
court asked  her  if  she  spoke  by  the  advice  of  her  coun- 
cil. Joan  told  him  that  she  did,  and  that  she  had  been 
much  urged  to  speak.  "Will  you  not  tell  us  here,  in 
the  king's  presence,"  said  Harcourt,  "the  manner  of  your 
council,  when  it  speaks  to  you?"  Joan  blushed,  for  she 
never  liked  to  gratify  idle  curiosity  about  things  sacred 
to  her,  but  she  saw  that  she  must  speak.  "I  understand 
well  enough  what  you  want  to  know,"  she  answered, 
"and  I  will  tell  you  freely."  She  then  said  that  when 
she  was  grieved  in  any  way,  because  men  would  not  be- 
lieve the  things  she  told  them  in  God's  behalf,  she  went 
into  some  place  apart  and  there  prayed  to  God,  bewail- 
ing because  those  to  whom  shexspoke  would  not  readily 
believe  her.  When  her  prayer  was  said,  she  used  to  hear 
a  voice  saying  to  her,  "Child  of  Go&,  go,  go.  I  will 
be  with  thee,  go;  " 1  and  as  she  heaicf  this  voice  she  was 
very  glad,  wishing  always  to  be  in  suet  condition  as  that. 
"What  is  more  remarkable,"  adds  the  Bastard,  who  tells 
the  story,  "while  she  was  repeating  the  words  spoken  by 
her  voices,  she  rejoiced  marvelously,  raising  her  eyes  to 
heaven."2 

Whether  the  decision  was  influenced  by  Joan's  appeal 
cannot  be  known  certainly.  By  some  means  or  other  the 
party  of  action  triumphed,  and  early  in  June  the  duke 
of  Alenc.on  was  given  command  of  the  army,  with  orders 
to  lead  it  against  Jargeau  and  the  other  fortresses  on  the 
Loire  which  were  in  English  hands.  It  was  supposed 

1  "  Fille  De',  va,  va,  va.     Je  serai  a  ton  aide;  va." 

2  P.  iii.  11,  12. 


120  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

that  Charles  himself  might  take  some  part  in  the  cam- 
paign, but  he  did  nothing  of  the  sort.1 

The  rendezvous  was  at  Selles,  about  fifteen  miles  from 
Loches  and  about  fifty  miles  south  of  Orleans.  Thither 
June  1-8,  Joan  went  soon  after  June  1,  and  there  were 
rapidly  gathered  men  from  almost  all  parts  of 
France,  aroused  by  the  news  of  her  exploits  before  Or- 
leans, and  beginning  again  to  hope  for  their  country. 
Among  them  were  two  brothers,  one  still  a  boy,  whose 
father  had  been  killed  at  Agincourt.  They  had  been 
brought  up  by  their  mother,  who  had  defended  their 
castles  against  the  English,  and  by  their  grandmother, 
in  her  youth  the  wife  of  the  great  constable,  Bertrand 
Duguesclin.  The  incoherent,  boyish  letter,  written  to  the 
women  at  home  by  these  two  young  soldiers,  Guy  and 
Andrew  of  Laval,2  is  the  most  picturesque  account  we 
have  of  the  state  of  affairs  in  France. 

MY  REVERED  LADIES  AND  MOTHERS,  —  After  I  wrote 
June  8,  vou  on  Friday  last  from  St.  Catherine  of  Fier- 
bois,  I  reached  Loches  on  Saturday,  and  went  to 
see  my  lord  dauphin  3  in  the  castle,  after  vespers  in  the 
collegiate  church.  He  is  a  very  fair  and  gracious  lord, 
very  well  made  and  active,  and  ought  to  be  about  seven 
years  old.  Sunday  I  came  to  St.  Aignan,  where  the  king 
was,  and  I  sent  for  my  lord  of  Treves4  to  come  to  my 
quarters;  and  my  uncle  went  up  with  him  to  the  castle 
to  tell  the  king  I  was  come,  and  to  find  out  when  he 
would  be  pleased  to  have  me  wait  on  him.  I  got  the 
answer  that  I  should  go  as  soon  as  I  wished,  and  he 

1  P.  v.  110. 

2  For  the  brothers,  see  Lobineau,  Hist.  Bretagne,  i.  539,  544,  553, 
562.     Andrew  was  born  about  1412.     Guy  was  probably  but  a  year 
or  two  older.    See,  also,  Chron.  Puc.,  216,  254;  Godefroy,  Hist.  Charles 
VII.,  5,  6,  217. 

8  Afterwards  Louis  XI. 

4  Gaucourt,  the  old  commander  of  the  garrison  of  Orleans. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   THE   LOIRE.  121 

greeted  me  kindly  and  said  many  pleasant  things  to 
me. 

On  Monday  I  left  the  king  to  go  to  Selles,  four 
leagues  from  St.  Aignan,  and  the  king  sent  for  the  Maid, 
who  was  then  at  Selles.  Some  people  said  that  this  was 
done  for  my  sake,  so  that  I  could  see  her;  at  any  rate 
she  was  very  pleasant  to  my  brother  and  me,  being  fully 
armed,  except  for  her  head,  and  holding  her  lance  in  her 
hand.  Afterwards,  when  we  had  dismounted  at  Selles, 
I  went  to  her  quarters  to  see  her,  and  she  had  wine 
brought,  and  told  me  she  would  soon  serve  it  to  me  in 
Paris;  and  what  she  did  seemed  at  times  quite  divine, 
both  to  look  at  her  and  to  hear  her.  Monday  at  vespers 
she  left  Selles  to  go  to  Romorantin,  three  leagues  in  ad- 
vance, the  marshal  of  Boussac  and  a  great  many  soldiers 
and  common  people  being  with  her.  I  saw  her  get  on 
horseback,  armed  all  in  white,  except  her  head,  with  a 
little  battle-axe  in  her  hand,  riding  a  great  black  courser, 
which  was  very  restive  at  the  door  of  her  lodgings,  and 
would  not  let  her  mount.  So  she  said,  "Lead  him  to 
the  cross,"  which  was  in  front  of  the  church  near  by,  in 
the  road.  There  she  mounted  without  his  budging,  just 
as  if  he  had  been  tied,  and  then  she  turned  toward  the 
church  door  which  was  close  by,  and  said,  "  You  priests 
and  churchmen,  make  a  procession  and  pray  to  God." 
She  then  set  out  on  the  road,  calling  "Forward,  forward," 
with  her  little  battle-axe  in  her  hand,  and  her  waving 
banner  carried  by  a  pretty  page. 

On  Monday  my  lord  duke  of  Alencon  came  to  Selles 
with  a  great  company,  and  to-day  I  won  a  match  from 
him  at  tennis.  I  found  here  a  gentleman  sent  from  my 
brother  Chauvigny,  because  he  had  heard  that  I  had 
reached  St.  Catherine.  The  man  said  that  he  had  sum- 
moned his  vassals  and  expected  soon  to  be  here,  and  that 
he  still  loved  my  sister  dearly,  and  that  she  was  stouter 
than  she  used  to  be.  It  is  said  here  that  my  lord  consta- 


122  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

ble  is  coming  with  six  hundred  men  at  arms  and  four 
hundred  archers,  and  that  the  king  never  had  so  great  a 
force  as  they  hope  to  gather.  But  there  is  no  money  at 
court,  or  so  little  that  for  the  present  I  can  expect  no 
help  nor  maintenance;  so  since  you  have  my  seal,  my 
lady  mother,  do  not  hesitate  to  sell  or  mortgage  my  lands, 
or  else  make  some  other  provision  by  which  we  may  be 
saved ;  otherwise  through  our  own  fault  we  shall  be  dis- 
honored, and  perhaps  come  near  perishing,  since,  if  we 
do  not  do  something  of  the  kind,  as  there  is  no  pay,  we 
shall  be  left  quite  alone.  So  far  we  have  been,  and  we 
still  are,  much  honored,  and  our  coming  has  greatly 
pleased  the  king  and  all  his  people,  and  they  make  us 
better  cheer  than  you  could  imagine. 

The  Maid  told  me  in  her  lodgings,  when  I  went  there 
to  see  her,  that  three  days  before  my  coming  she  had  sent 
to  you,  my  grandmother,  a  little  gold  ring,  but  she  said 
that  it  was  a  very  little  thing  and  that  she  would  willingly 
have  sent  you  something  better  considering  your  rank. 

To-day  my  lord  of  Alencon,  the  Bastard  of  Orleans, 
and  Gaucourt  should  leave  this  place  of  Selles,  and  go 
after  the  Maid,  and  you  have  sent  I  don't  know  what 
letters  to  my  cousin  La  Tremoille  and  to  my  lord  of 
Treves,  so  that  the  king  wants  to  keep  me  with  him  until 
the  Maid  has  been  before  the  English  places  around  Or- 
leans to  which  they  are  going  to  lay  siege,  and  the  artil- 
lery is  already  prepared,  and  the  Maid  makes  no  doubt 
that  she  will  soon  be  with  the  king,  saying  that  when  he 
starts  to  advance  toward  Rheims  I  shall  go  with  him; 
but  God  forbid  that  I  should  do  this,  and  not  go  with 
her  at  once ;  and  my  brother  says  so,  too,  and  so  does  my 
lord  of  Alencon,  —  such  a  good-for-nothing  will  a  fellow 
be  who  stays  behind.  They  think  that  the  king  will  leave 
here  to-day,  to  draw  nearer  to  the  army,  and  men  are 
coming  in  from  all  directions  every  day.  They  hope  that 
before  ten  days  are  out  affairs  will  be  nearly  settled  one 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  LOIRE.          123 

way  or  the  other,  but  all  have  so  good  hope  in  God  that 
I  believe  He  will  help  us. 

My  very  respected  ladies  and  mothers,  we  send  our 
remembrances,  my  brother  and  I,  to  you,  as  humbly  as 
we  can;  and  please  also  write  us  at  once  news  of  your- 
selves, and  do  you,  my  lady  mother,  tell  me  how  you 
find  yourself  after  the  medicines  you  have  taken,  for  I 
am  much  troubled  about  you. 

My  very  respected  ladies  and  mothers,  I  pray  the 
blessed  son  of  God  to  give  you  a  good  life  and  a  long 
one,  and  we  both  of  us  also  send  our  remembrances  to 
our  brother  Louis.  Written  at  Selles  this  Wednesday 
the  8th  of  June. 

And  this  vespers  there  came  here  my  lord  of  Vendome, 
my  lord  of  Boussac,  and  others,  and  La  Hire  is  close  to 
the  army,  and  soon  they  will  set  to  work.  God  grant 
that  we  get  our  wish. 

Your  humble  sons, 

GUY  and  ANDREW  OF  LAVAL.* 

On  Wednesday  afternoon  Alencon  and  Joan  left  Ro- 
morantin  with  about  two  thousand  troops  and  marched 
toward  Orleans.  They  were  soon  joined  by  the  Bastard 
and  other  captains,  with  an  equal  force,  and  together 
they  entered  the  city  on  Thursday,  June  9.2  june9 
Again  there  was  debate  among  the  leaders.  Some  1429- 
of  them  were  for  attacking  Jargeau  at  once,  while  others 
dreaded  the  coming  of  Fastolf ,  who  was  advancing  from 
Paris  with  a  considerable  body  of  men,  got  together  by 
Bedford  in  order  to  reinforce  Talbot  and  the  garri- 
sons on  the  Loire.  The  duke  of  Alencon,  who  had  not 
been  with  Joan  at  the  raising  of  the  siege,  describes  her 

1  P.  v.  105. 

2  P.  iii.  10,  Bastard;  94,  Alemjon;  iv.  170;  Journ.  Stige,  and  note; 
v.  109;   Laval's  letter,  just  quoted.     See  iv.  11,  Cagny.      Alengon 
says  that  the  force  amounted  to  about  1,200  lances. 


124  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

influence  at  this  time  in  terms  like  those  used  by  the 
Bastard  and  others  in  speaking  of  the  encouragement  she 
gave  them  five  or  six  weeks  before.  They  should  not 
fear  the  force  of  the  enemy,  she  said,  nor  hesitate  to 
attack  the  English,  since  God  was  directing  their  work ; 
and  she  added  that,  unless  she  were  sure  of  God's  leader- 
ship, she  would  rather  tend  sheep  than  expose  herself  to 
danger.  Thereupon  the  captains  decided  to  push  the 
war.1 

Jargeau  was  a  compact  little  town,  about  four  hundred 
yards  square,  perfectly  flat,  built  close  to  the  south  bank 
of  the  Loire,  and  connected  by  a  bridge  within  the  vil- 
lage of  St.  Denis  on  the  north  bank.  It  was  defended  by 
strong  walls,  and  the  fosse  outside  them  was  filled  with 
water  from  the  river.  William  Pole,  earl  of  Suffolk, 
held  the  place  with  about  six  hundred  men,  a  force  prob- 
ably quite  large  enough  to  man  the  defenses.2  From 
the  church  tower  he  could  survey  the  country  for  miles, 
and  watch  every  movement  of  his  enemy.  Even  the 
spires  of  Orleans  could  be  plainly  seen  in  the  distance. 

On  Saturday  morning  the  expedition,  commanded  by 
June  11,  Alen^on,  started  to  travel  along  the  twelve  miles 
1429.  Of  fla{;  roa(j  leading  to  Jargeau  through  the 
Sologne.  There  were  three  thousand  soldiers  or  there- 
abouts, who  had  come  to  Orleans  with  Joan,  and  a  large 
body  of  townspeople  and  men  from  the  country  round 
about.  A  considerable  siege  train  was  sent  by  water.3 
Early  in  the  afternoon  the  army  approached  Jargeau. 
The  men  of  Orleans,  encouraged  by  their  marvelous 

1  P.  iii.  95,  Alenc.on. 

2  See  Leroy,  Jargeau  et  ses  environs  ;  P.  iv.  12,  Cagny;  236,  Chron. 
Puc.  •  v.  56,  Martial  d'Auvergne. 

3  For  this  and  a  detailed  account  of  the  munitions  sent  from  Orleans 
to  Jargeau,  see  Villatet,  Campagnes  des  Anglais,  145  et  seq. ;  Leroy, 
190  et  seq.     One  large  cannon  went  by  land.     Cagny  says  that  there 
were  2,000  or  3,000  soldiers  and  as  many  common  people.  The  Journ. 
Siege  says  there  were  about  8,000  fighting  men  altogether. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   THE   LOIKE.  125 

success  only  a  month  before,  without  waiting  for  the  ad- 
vance of  the  soldiers  rushed  at  once  into  the  ditches  and 
tried  to  storm  the  place.  The  garrison  stood  bravely  to 
arms,  beat  them  off  without  much  trouble,  and  even  took 
the  offensive,  charging  upon  them  and  driving  them  back 
upon  the  main  body.  It  is  likely  that  the  French  regu- 
lars were  not  very  sorry  to  see  misfortune  befall  this  un- 
professional warfare;  but  Joan,  who  remembered  how 
gallantly  these  citizens  had  supported  her  attack  on  the 
Tourelles,  seized  her  banner  and  led  the  men  at  arms  to 
their  rescue.  The  English  in  turn  were  driven  back; 
the  French  occupied  the  environs  of  the  town  up  to  the 
very  ditch,  and  there  they  passed  the  night.  Confused, 
perhaps,  by  the  zeal  of  the  irregulars,  the  army  was  in 
some  disorder,  and  few  sentries  were  posted.  Alen^on 
attributed  the  safety  of  his  men  to  that  leadership  of  God 
of  which  Joan  had  spoken.1 

During  the  night  and  the  early  morning  the  artillery 
was  posted,  and  soon  after  sunrise  the  bombard-  june  12? 
ment  began.  Suffolk  was  not  unwilling  to  treat,  1429- 
and  offered  to  surrender  the  place  in  fifteen  days  un- 
less sooner  relieved;  but  the  blood  of  the  French  was  up, 
and  La  Hire,  who  parleyed  with  him,  was  angrily  called 
away.  Joan  said  that  the  English  might  leave  in  their 
tunics  if  they  wished,  without  arms  or  armor,  otherwise 
the  place  should  be  stormed.  Suffolk  would  not  consider 
these  terms,  and  the  cannons  began  again.  One  of  the 
towers  was  destroyed,  and  the  French  sharpshooters  picked 
off  some  of  the  garrison  with  their  culverins.2 

The  English  had  their  artillery,  too,  and  its  firing  was 
not  without  effect.  As  Joan  and  Alenc.on  were  standing 
together,  watching  the  bombardment,  she  told  him  to 
step  aside,  lest  he  should  be  killed  by  a  gun  on  the  walls 
which  she  pointed  out  to  him.  He  withdrew,  and  in  a 

1  P.  iii.  95,  Alentjon;  iv.  12,  Cagny. 

2  P.  i.  79,  J.'s  test.;  iii.  95,  Alen<jon. 


126  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

few  minutes  a  gentleman  was  killed  on  the  very  spot. 
Soon  she  grew  impatient;  there  were  rumors  of  Fastolf's 
approach,  and  she  urged  an  immediate  attack.  The 
trumpets  sounded,  and  she  cried  to  Alencon,  "Forward, 
gentle  duke,  to  the  assault."  He  did  not  advance,  as  it 
seemed  to  him  that  her  plan  was  rash.  "Do  not  hesi- 
tate," she  said;  "when  it  pleases  God,  the  hour  is  pre- 
pared. God  helps  those  who  help  themselves."  Then, 
seeing  that  he  still  halted,  "Ah,  gentle  duke,"  she  asked, 
"are  you  afraid?  Do  you  not  know  that  I  promised 
your  wife  to  bring  you  back  safe  and  sound?"  Thereat 
they  both  rushed  to  the  attack.1 

It  was  still  Sunday  morning  when  the  assault  began, 
soldiers  and  men  of  Orleans  fighting  side  by  side.  Again 
Suffolk  tried  to  parley,  but  this  time  could  get  no  hear- 
ing. For  several  hours  the  struggle  went  on,  Joan  in 
the  thick  of  it.  Banner  in  hand,  she  seized  a  ladder  and, 
as  at  the  Tourelles,  tried  to  mount  the  wall.  One  of  the 
garrison  threw  down  a  stone  which  knocked  the  banner 
out  of  her  hand  and,  striking  the  light  helmet  she  wore, 
beat  her  to  the  ground.  At  once  she  sprang  up  and 
called  to  the  soldiers,  "Friends,  friends,  forward,  on- 
ward, our  Lord  has  condemned  the  English.  The  day  is 
ours.  Keep  a  good  heart."  2 

The  English  could  hold  out  no  longer,  the  town  was 
stormed,  and  Suffolk  retreated  toward  the  bridge ;  on  that 
side  Jargeau  was  protected  from  assault  by  the  river,  and 
he  hoped  to  escape  into  the  Beauce.  The  French  were 
too  close  upon  him,  however;  his  brother  and  many  of 
the  garrison  were  slain  in  the  narrow  streets,  while  he 
surrendered  with  all  that  were  left  alive.8  The  stubborn  - 

1  P.  iii.  96,  Alengon;  iv.  170, 171,  Journ.  Siege. 

2  AletNjon  and  Journ.  Siege,  ubi  supra. 

3  Before  surrendering,  Suffolk  is  said  to  have  knighted  his  captor, 
so  that  he  might  not  surrender  to  one  of  inferior  rank.     P.  iv.  173. 
See  Rev.  Hist.,  iv.  332. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   THE   LOIRE.  127 

ness  of  the  defense  had  infuriated  the  besiegers,  among 
whom  were  many  country  people  wholly  without  disci- 
pline, and  the  town  was  sacked,  even  to  the  church,  where 
the  citizens  had  stored  their  goods.  In  the  horrible  con- 
fusion, Joan  was  powerless  to  stop  the  sacrilege,  but  she 
took  the  experience  to  heart  and  profited  by  it.  Even 
some  of  the  prisoners  were  butchered  on  the  road  to  Or- 
leans, owing  to  a  quarrel  among  their  captors,  and  the 
others  had  to  be  sent  down  to  the  city  by  boat  during  the 
night.1 

1  See  the  authorities  already  quoted,  and  P.  iv.  369,  Monstrelet; 
Rel.  ined.,  29;  Leroy,  79  et  seq.  According  to  Cagny  the  French  lost 
not  over  twenty  men  killed. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   THE   LOIRE.  —  PATAY. 

ON  the  same  evening,  or  on  the  next  morning,  Joan 
June  12-  an(i  Alencon  went  back  to  Orleans,  whence  news 
13, 1429.  Of  the  victory  was  sent  to  the  king.  He  had 
moved  to  Sully,  a  town  between  Jargeau  and  Gien,  be- 
longing to  La  Tremoille,  which  had  become  quite  safe 
from  attack  and,  fortunately,  was  on  the  road  to  Rheims. 
The  news  spread  northward,  also,  reaching  Paris  on 
Tuesday,  and  filling  the  English  with  dismay.1 

After  Jargeau  had  been  taken,  the  Loire  for  about 
fifty  miles  above  Orleans  2  was  controlled  by  the  French, 
but  below  the  city  Talbot  held  Beaugency  with  a  moder- 
ate force,  while  Scales,  his  lieutenant,  was  posted  at 
Meung.3  The  English  army  of  relief,  organized  by  Bed- 
ford as  soon  as  possible  after  Talbot 's  retreat  from  Or- 
leans, had  left  Paris  early  in  June  under  the  command  of 
Sir  John  Fastolf ,  and  on  the  day  that  Jargeau  was  taken 
it  had  reached  Janville,  only  twenty-five  miles  distant.4 
The  wisdom  of  Joan's  vigorous  attack  upon  Jargeau  was 
now  apparent.  Fastolf  had  been  pushing  forward  as 
rapidly  as  possible,  but  when  he  heard  of  the  French 
success  he  halted,  awaiting  further  reinforcements  from 
Normandy. 

Joan  was  desirous  of  following  up  at  once  the  success 

1  See  P.  iv.  13,  Cagny  ;  173,  Journ.  Siege;  452,  Fauquemberque  ; 
Beaucourt,  ii.  220. 

2  As  far  up  the  river  as  Bonny. 

8  Cagny,  who  was  probably  present,  estimates  the  English  garri- 
son of  Meung  at  about  four  hundred  men. 

*  P.  iv.  414,  Wavrin  ;  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  95. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   THE   LOIRE.  129 

she  had  won  at  Jargeau.  Tuesday  was  spent  in  Orleans, 
where  the  two  Lavals  were  at  length  allowed  to  join  the 
army.  On  Wednesday,  at  Joan's  instance,1  all  j^g  15) 
left  the  city,  and  with  a  great  force  of  horsemen  1429< 
and  footmen,  a  large  siege  train,  and  many  well-loaded 
wagons,  marched  down  the  Loire  to  Meung.  The  forti- 
fied bridge  which  there  crossed  the  river  was  attacked  at 
once  and  carried  by  storm  after  short  resistance.  The 
rest  of  the  town  was  abandoned,  and  the  soldiers  of  the 
garrison  who  escaped  fled  five  miles  farther  down  the 
river  to  Beaugency.2 

On  Wednesday  afternoon  a  part  of  the  French  troops 
pushed  on  after  the  fugitives.     As  at  Jargeau,  the  pur- 
suers fell  into  some  disorder,  and  Alen9on,  who   jane  15, 
with  a  few  men  passed  the  night   in  a  church   1429- 
near  Meung,  thought  himself  in  danger.     On  Thursday 
morning  the  army  was  united  before  Beaugency.3 

When  Talbot  heard  of  the  French  advance,  having  no 
force  sufficient  to  meet  them  in  the  field,  he  left  Beau- 
gency and  rode  to  Janville  to  hasten  the  march  of  Fastolf . 
Before  his  departure,  he  withdrew  the  garrisons  from  one 
or  two  smaller  places,  and  concentrated  in  Beaugency 
nearly  the  whole  of  his  available  force  under  Matthew 
Gough,  a  Welsh  captain  of  bravery  and  discretion.  As 
Gough  had  less  than  a  thousand  men,  he  did  not  try  to 
defend  the  town  of  Beaugency,  but  retired  into  the  castle, 
which  covered  the  bridge.  The  French,  accordingly,  en- 
tered the  town,  and  at  once  posted  themselves  so  as  to 
prevent  Gough's  escape  northward  through  the  Beauce; 
it  was  still  possible  for  him  to  cross  the  river  into  the 
Sologne,  but  the  country  south  of  the  Loire  was  entirely 

1  P.  iv.  13,  Cagny. 

2  P.  iv.  173,  Journ.  Siege;  239,  Chran.  Puc. ;  370,  Monstrelet.     It 
is    impossible   to  say   with   certainty   by   which   bank  the   French 
marched  down  the  Loire  ;  probably  by  the  northern. 

8  P.  iii.  97,  Alengon. 


130  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

hostile  to  him.  The  French  planted  their  cannon  and 
began  the  bombardment,  which  was  interrupted  by  a 
sortie  of  the  English.  This  cost  both  sides  some  men, 
but  was  at  length  repulsed.1 

That  very  evening  news  was  brought  to  Joan  and  to 
Alen^on  that  the  constable  of  France,  Arthur  of  Riche- 
mont,  was  close  at  hand,  with  a  considerable  body  of 
men.  The  situation  was  embarrassing.  At  the  instiga- 
tion of  La  Tremoille,  Charles  had  forbidden  the  consta- 
ble's approach,  and  Alen^on,  who  was  in  command  of  the 
army,  had  been  expressly  ordered  not  to  receive  him. 
The  duke  was  Richemont's  nephew  and  not  his  personal 
enemy,  yet  he  was  ready  to  raise  the  siege  and  to  with- 
draw, though  some  of  the  other  captains  were  so  favor- 
able to  the  constable,  or  so  hostile  to  La  Tremoille,  that 
they  were  willing  to  disregard  the  king's  orders.  The 
night  passed  without  a  decision,  and  on  Friday  morning 
June  17,  came  a  rumor  of  the  advance  of  the  English 
1429-  army  under  Talbot  and  Fastolf.  The  soldiers 
cried  to  arms,  and  Joan  told  the  duke,  who,  as  he  says, 
still  wished  to  retire,  that  he  ought  to  be  glad  of  Riche- 
mont's coming.2 

They  both  mounted  and  rode  out  to  meet  him  as  he 
came  up  the  river  from  Blois;  with  them  went  the  Bas- 
tard, the  two  Lavals,  and  others.  Richemont  had  already 
reached  the  outskirts  of  the  town.  The  story  of  the  in- 
terview is  told  quite  differently  by  his  biographer  and  by 
the  so-called  Chronicler  of  the  Maid.  According  to  the 
former,  Joan  threw  herself  at  the  constable's  feet  and 
after  some  parley  was  received  into  his  favor;  according 
to  the  latter,  Richemont  humbly  begged  Joan  to  pardon 
his  offenses  in  the  king's  name,  which  she  did  at  last, 
being  entreated  by  Alen^on  and  the  other  captains. 
Both  these  accounts  are  fantastical.  Richemont  was  a 

1  P.  iv.  414,  Wavrin  ;  174,  Journ.  Siege  ;  14,  Cagny. 

2  P.  iii.  98  ;  iv.  14,  Cagny. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  THE  LOIRE.          131 

proud  nobleman,  the  victim  of  unjust  accusation,  as  he 
believed,  while  Joan  certainly  never  knelt  to  any  man 
save  to  her  lawful  king.  What  happened  was  probably 
much  less  theatrical.  The  English  were  at  hand,  the 
constable  was  greeted  hastily,  perhaps  suspiciously,  and 
all  got  ready  for  battle.1 

We  must  now  follow  Talbot,  who  had  left  Beaugency 
before  the  arrival  of  the  French. 

Riding  quickly  with  a  small  escort,  he  reached  Jan- 
ville  about  noon  on  Thursday,  and  found  that  junei6, 
Fastolf  had  assembled  there  a  council  of  war.    17» 1429- 
The  troops  were  glad  of  Talbot 's  coming,  for  "he  was 
then  accounted  to  be  the  wisest  and  bravest  knight  in  the 
realm  of  England."     After  dinner  the  council  sat  again. 
Fastolf  was  for  delay,  urging  that  the  result  of  the  cam- 
paign had  greatly  disheartened  the  English  and  encour- 
aged the  French,  and  that  it  was  best  to  stand  on  the 
defensive  in  the  strongholds  which  the  English  still  pos- 
sessed, and  to  leave  the  garrison  of  Beaugency  to  make 
the  best  terms  possible  with  its  besiegers.     Talbot  would 
not  hear  of  this  plan.     To  the  day  of  his  death  he  was 
an  impetuous  man,  unable  to  bear  the  imputation  of  cow- 
ardice, and,  without  a  battle,  he  would  not  give  way  be- 
fore a  girl.     Though  he  had  only  his  escort  and  those 
who  would   follow  him,  he   said,  yet  he  would  -jnne  17> 
fight  the  French  with  the  help  of  God  and  St.    1429- 
George.    Fastolf  yielded,  and  very  early  on  Friday  morn- 
ing the  army  marched  out  of  Janville.2 

Even  after  the  troops  were  drawn  up  with  banners 
flying,  Fastolf  continued  to  remonstrate  against  the  move- 
ment, saying  that  the  English  were  greatly  outnumbered, 
and  that  defeat  meant  the  loss  of  their  dominion  in 
France.  Again  his  advice  was  disregarded,  and  the  army 

1  P.  iv.  241,  Chron.  Puc. ;  317,  Gruel.     See  Bib.  Ecole  Charles,  t. 
xlvii.  p.  556. 

2  P.  iv.  414  et  seq.,  Wavrin. 


132  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

inarched  rapidly  on  Meung  and  Beaugency,  so  rapidly, 
indeed,  that  in  the  afternoon  it  reached  a  place  distant 
about  a  league  from  each  town.  Posted  on  a  small  hill 
in  front  of  Beaugency  was  the  body  of  the  French  army, 
covering  the  siege  of  the  castle  and  bridge. 

Talbot  expected  an  immediate  attack,  and  drew  up  his 
archers  and  men  at  arms  to  resist  it;  then,  finding  that 
the  French  did  not  stir,  he  sent  them  heralds  to  announce 
that  three  English  knights  were  ready  to  fight  with  any 
coiners  who  would  descend  the  hill.  Doubtless  he  in- 
tended by  this  means  to  bring  on  a  battle,  but  the  heralds 
were  answered  "that  it  was  too  late,  and  that  the  English 
had  better  encamp  for  the  night.  "In  the  morning," 
said  the  Frenchmen,  "we  will  look  you  in  the  face."1 

The  English,  however,  had  no  intention  of  wasting 
time.  Fearing  to  attack  the  French  in  their  strong  posi- 
tion, they  left  the  field  and  fell  suddenly  upon  Meung, 
occupying  the  town  without  a  struggle,  though  the  bridge 
was  still  held  by  its  French  garrison.  It  was  night,  but 
Talbot  at  once  brought  up  his  artillery,  and  the  firing 
went  on  through  the  darkness.  With  the  bridge  of 
Meung  in  his  possession,  he  could  pass  the  Loire,  and, 
marching  through  the  Sologne,  could  enter  Beaugency  by 
its  bridge.  This  was  still  held  by  Gough  and  his  men, 
the  body  of  the  French  army  being  in  the  Beauce,  and 
able  to  cross  the  river  only  with  difficulty.  When  Sat- 
urday morning  came,  however,  the  French  still  held  the 
bridge  of  Meung.2 

Meantime,  the  English  garrison  of  Beaugency  was 
in  sore  straits.  Hard  pressed,  with  battered  walls,  the 
soldiers  had  seen  Alen9on's  army  reinforced  by  the  con- 

1  See  Wavrin,  ubi  supra. 

2  Wavrin.     In  the  Chron.  PMC.,  P.  iv.  241,  it  is  said  that  the  con- 
stable was  to  lay  siege  to  Beaugency  on  the  side  of  the  Sologne,  over 
against  the  bridge.     Apparently,  the  place  surrendered  before  he 
did  so. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   THE   LOIRE.  133 

stable,  while  the  English  army  was  gone  they  did  not 
know  where,  though  they  were  told  by  the  French  that  it 
had  fallen  back  on  Paris.     At  about  midnight  on  Fri- 
day Gough  capitulated.     His  men,  with  their  horses  and 
arms,  were  to  depart  into  the  English  possessions,  not  to 
bear  arms  against  Charles  VII.  for  a  certain  time.    june  ^ 
Gough  himself  was  kept  as  a  hostage.     At  sun-   1429- 
rise  on  Saturday  these  terms  were  carried  out,  and  the 
French  were  ready  to  take  the  field.1 

The  news  of  the  surrender  of  Beaugency  reached  Tal- 
bot  about  nine  o'clock  on  Saturday  morning,  after  he 
had  heard  mass  and  just  as  he  had  ordered  an  assault 
on  the  bridge  of  Meung.  The  object  of  his  expedition, 
the  relief  of  Beaugency,  having  altogether  failed,  his  pru- 
dence got  the  better  of  his  zeal,  and  he  at  once  ordered 
a  retreat  to  Janville.  This  was  begun  in  good  order, 
the  artillery  and  wagons  preceding  the  main  body  of  the 
army,  and  the  rear  protected  by  a  force  of  picked  Eng- 
lishmen.2 

At  first  the  French  were  uncertain  what  to  do.  When 
Talbot  issued  from  Meung,  they  supposed  that  he  would 
again  offer  battle,  and  some  of  the  captains  seem  to  have 
suggested  a  retreat.  Alen9on  asked  Joan  what  was  to 
be  done.  "Let  all  have  good  spurs,"  she  answered. 
"What  are  you  saying?  shall  we  turn  our  backs  upon 
them?  "  cried  one  of  the  captains,  surprised  at  such  advice 
from  her.  "No.  It  is  the  English  who  shall  not  be 
able  to  defend  themselves  and  shall  be  overthrown,  and 
you  will  need  good  spurs  to  ride  after  them."  Very  soon 
the  captains  saw  that  Talbot  was  in  full  retreat,  and  all 
started  in  pursuit.  Their  advance  was  somewhat  disor- 
derly, so  greatly  had  constant  success  encouraged  them, 
and  so  much  did  they  fear  lest  the  English  should  escape. 

1  See  P.  iv.  241,  Chron.  Puc.  •  and  the  letter,  probably  written  by 
Jacqnes  de  Bourbon,  printed  in  Rev.  Bleue,  t.  xlix.  p.  203. 

2  Wavrin. 


134  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

The  main  body  of  the  French  was  led  by  Joan,  Alencon, 
and  the  constable ;  while  the  Bastard  and  La  Hire  with  a 
force  of  cavalry  hung  upon  the  English  rear,  harassing 
their  retreat,  and  delaying  them  until  the  rest  of  the 
French  should  come  up.  Joan  herself  wished  much  to 
join  this  force,  and  was  angry  that  La  Hire  went  in  her 
place.  Constantly  she  encouraged  the  pursuit.  "In 
God's  name  we  must  fight  them;  if  they  were  hung  to 
the  clouds,  we  should  have  them,  for  God  sent  them  to 
us  that  we  might  punish  them."  "The  gentle  king  shall 
have  to-day  the  greatest  victory  he  has  ever  won;  my 
council  has  told  me  that  they  all  are  ours." l 

Throughout  the  morning  the  English  retreated  as 
quickly  as  possible,  and  they  made  such  good  speed  that 
early  in  the  afternoon  they  drew  near  to  Patay,  twelve 
miles  or  more  from  Meung,  and  about  as  far  from  Jan- 
ville,  their  objective  point.  The  French  had  gained 
on  them,  however,  and  were  within  sight  of  their  rear 
guard.  Seeing  that  he  could  not  escape  without  some 
fighting,  Talbot  ordered  his  advance  guard,  with  the 
wagons  and  artillery,  to  take  position  near  Patay,  behind 
some  stout  hedges  which  would  cover  their  front  from 
the  French  cavalry.  He  himself  dismounted,  and  with 
five  hundred  archers  halted  in  a  place  where  the  road, 
through  which  the  French  must  pass,  was  bordered  on 
both  sides  by  a  hedge.  Here  he  stood  his  ground  while 
his  main  body  hastened  to  join  the  train.2 

Either  the  hedges  or  the  woods  at  first  concealed  his 
position,  but  the  French  cavalry  started  a  stag,  which 
rushed  among  the  English  soldiers,  and  the  shout  these 
raised  discovered  them  to  the  French.  At  once  the 

1  P.  Hi.  10,  Bastard;  98,  Alenc.on;  71,  Coutes;  iv.  177,  Journ.  Siege; 
Letter  of  J.  de  Bourbon,  cited  above. 

2  P.iv.  421,  Wavrin;  see  the  notes  to  De  Vassal,  Bataille  de  Patay. 
For  the  battle,  see  P.   iv.  67,  J.  Chattier;  318,  Gruel;  340;  371, 
Monstrelet;  v.  351. 


THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   THE   LOIRE.  135 

Bastard  charged  upon  Talbot,  and  routed  his  command 
after  stout  resistance,  Talbot  himself  being  taken  pris- 
oner. His  defense,  however,  might  have  saved  the  rest 
of  the  troops,  had  they  stood  to  their  arms,  but  they  were 
demoralized  by  their  hasty  retreat,  and  by  the  fear  of 
Joan.  The  soldiers  posted  to  protect  the  train  saw  Fas- 
tolf  hastening  toward  them;  he  was  trying  to  get  his 
command  into  position  before  it  should  be  attacked  by 
the  French,  but  they  supposed  that  he  had  been  defeated, 
and  they  took  to  flight.  Fastolf  himself  turned  back  to 
the  field,  hoping  to  die  there  or  be  captured,  but  he  was 
dragged  away  by  his  escort  and  at  last  rode  off  to  Paris. 
It  was  bloody  work;  even  at  the  Tourelles  Joan  had 
never  seen  such  slaughter,  —  for  the  most  part  slaughter 
of  unresisting  fugitives.  After  the  English  broke,  the 
French  cavalry  had  but  to  ride  down  the  common  sol- 
diers, and  receive  the  captains  to  ransom.1  A  French- 
man was  dragging  along  several  English  prisoners;  for 
some  reason,  he  became  angry  with  one  of  them,  and 
struck  him  over  the  head,  beating  him  senseless  to  the 
ground.  This  was  then  a  common  practice  in  war  if  the 
prisoner  was  not  too  valuable.  But  Joan  at  once  dis- 
mounted and  raised  the  prisoner's  head,  laying  it  in  her 
lap;  then  she  sent  for  a  priest,  and  had  him  confessed, 
meanwhile  comforting  him  as  best  she  could.2 

The  French  victory  was  complete.  When  at  last  some 
of  the  English  fugitives  reached  Janville  the  inhabitants 
rose  and  barred  the  gates,  and  forced  the  commandant  of 
the  citadel  to  swear  allegiance  to  Charles.3  The  English 
at  once  evacuated  all  the  places  they  still  held  in  the 
Beauce,  and  the  country  was  clear  of  them  almost  as  far 

1  The  rest  of  those  killed,  says  Monstrelet,  "  were  all  men  of  small 
and  mean  estate,  such   as  they  are  wont  to  bring  from  their  own 
country  to  die  in  France."     P.  iv.  374. 

2  P.  iii.  71,  Coutes. 

8  P.  iv.  244,  Chron.  Puc. 


136  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

as  Paris.  As  Alencon,  the  constable,  and  Joan  entered 
Patay  after  the  fight,  Talbot  was  brought  before  them. 
The  duke  said  to  his  prisoner,  perhaps  in  courteous  excuse 
for  so  great  a  victory,  that  even  on  that  very  morning 
he  did  not  suppose  the  like  success  to  be  possible,  which 
Talbot  answered  with  true  English  taciturnity  by  say- 
ing that  it  was  the  fortune  of  war.  He  was  ransomed 
almost  immediately,  and  complained  bitterly,  though  un- 
justly, as  it  seems,  that  he  had  lost  the  battle  through 
Fastolf's  cowardice.1 

In  the  campaign  of  the  Loire,  as  it  is  usually  called, 
the  French  had  thus  obtained  complete  success.  Within 
a  week  they  had  taken  three  fortified  places,  had  de- 
stroyed an  English  army  in  the  field,  and  had  freed  sev- 
eral hundred  square  miles  of  country  from  the  enemy. 
So  much  is  clear,  but  we  have  yet  to  consider  what  share 
of  this  great  success  was  due  to  Joan.  That  she  was 
responsible  for  the  tactics  of  the  French  army  is  not 
likely,  for  it  was  commanded  by  experienced  officers,  who 
directed  the  details  of  all  movements.  She  was  hardly 
responsible  for  the  strategy  of  the  campaign,  for  of  strat- 
egy there  seems  to  have  been  little.  Indeed,  as  Talbot 
commanded  the  largest  English  force  on  the  Loire,  and 
as  he  was  instantly  expecting  reinforcements,  it  seems 
that  the  French  should  first  have  attacked  him  at  Meung 
and  Beaugency,  and  should  have  left  Suffolk  at  Jargeau 
until  afterwards.  To  treat  the  successes  of  Joan  like 
those  of  Alexander  or  Napoleon  is  gravely  to  mistake  her 
power. 

After  all  this  has  been  said,  however,  it  remains  true 
that  the  success  of  the  campaign  was  chiefly  due  to  her. 
The  two  causes  which  gave  victory  to  the  French  were 
the  different  morale  of  the  two  armies  and  the  quickness 
of  the  French  movements.  That  the  excellent  morale 

1  See  P.  iv.  375,  Monstrelet.  For  Talbot's  ransom,  see  Stevenson, 
Wars  Eng.,  i.  422. 


THE   CAMPAIGN    OF   THE   LOIRE.  137 

of  the  French  and  the  doubtful  morale  of  the  English 
troops  were  both  due  to  Joan  is  plain  to  any  one  reading 
the  history  of  the  siege  of  Orleans.  "Before  she  came," 
writes  a  French  chronicler  of  the  time,  "two  hundred 
English  used  to  chase  five  hundred  Frenchmen ;  after  her 
coming  two  hundred  Frenchmen  used  to  chase  four  hun- 
dred English."  "The  courage  of  the  English,"  said  a 
soldier  serving  under  Fastolf,  "was  much  changed  and 
weakened ;  they  saw  their  men  enfeebled,  and  found  them 
less  firm  in  their  judgment  than  they  were  wont  to  be." 1 
Again,  the  remarkable  quickness  and  vigor  of  the 
French  movements  were  largely  the  result  of  Joan's  inces- 
sant exhortations.  She  urged  the  march  on  Jargeau,  and 
a  speedy  assault.  Had  the  place  been  suffered  to  hold 
out  a  day  or  two  longer,  Fastolf  would  have  relieved  it, 
or  would  have  joined  Talbot  at  Beaugency,  for  it  was  the 
news  of  the  fall  of  Jargeau  that  halted  his  relieving  army 
at  Janville.  It  was  Joan  who  advised  the  expedition 
against  Meung  and  Beaugency,  and  it  was  she  who 
pressed  on  the  pursuit  of  Talbot,  and  thus  secured  the 
great  victory  of  Patay.  Alen^on,  the  Bastard,  the  con- 
stable, and  La  Hire,  all  served  creditably,  yet  it  is  alto- 
gether probable  that  without  Joan's  vigorous  counsels 
the  French  success  would  have  been  incomplete.  It 
should  be  said,  besides,  that  she  showed  good  judgment 
in  dealing  with  the  constable,  and  considerable  self-re- 
straint in  declining  Talbot's  challenge  on  Friday,  when 
a  hostile  fortress  and  an  almost  impassable  river  were 
in  the  rear  of  the  French  army.  Considering  all  these 
things,  it  is  no  wonder  that  a  captain  who  served  with 
her  in  this  campaign,  and  testified  about  her  twenty -five 
years  afterwards,  looking  back  over  a  life  of  almost  in- 

1  P.  iv.  221,  Chron.  Puc. ;  418,  Wavrin.  The  implication  subtly 
conveyed  by  the  precise  numbers  that  the  previous  demoralization 
of  the  French  was  a  little  greater  than  the  subsequent  demoralization 
of  the  English  is  noteworthy,  though  perhaps  accidental. 


138  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

cessant  warfare,  should  have  said  that  in  all  her  deeds  he 
believed  there  was  more  of  the  divine  than  of  the  human. 
The  lasting  glamour  which  her  enthusiasm  cast  over  him 
made  him  add  that,  in  the  leading  of  soldiers  and  in  the 
art  of  war,  in  the  setting  of  battle  and  in  the  encourage- 
ment of  troops,  she  bore  herself  like  the  most  skillful 
captain  in  the  world.1 

1  See  P.  iii.  120,  Thibaud  d'Armagnac. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  MARCH   TO   RHEEMS. 

THE  battle  of  Patay  was  won  on  Saturday,  June  18, 
in  the  afternoon.  That  night  the  army  slept  at  J^Q  !g_ 
or  about  Patay ;  on  Sunday,  after  an  early  din-  23' 1429> 
ner,  Joan  returned  to  Orleans  with  Alencon  and  most  o£ 
the  captains.1  The  constable  withdrew  apart  to  Beau- 
gency,  where  he  waited  for  the  king's  permission  to  come 
to  court.  All  efforts  to  secure  this  were  vain ;  Joan  2nd 
Alencon  begged  for  it,  two  nobles  of  Richemont's  suite 
went  down  on  their  knees  to  La  Tremoille,  but  the  favor- 
ite was  inexorable.  Apparently  the  constable  did  not 
think  himself  strong  enough  to  force  his  way  into 
Charles's  presence.  Perhaps  he  did  not  wish  to  endanger 
the  expedition  to  Rheims.  He  attempted  the  siege  of 
a  fortress  not  far  from  Beaugency,  and,  having  failed 
through  no  fault  of  his  own,  returned  in  disgust  to  his 
estates.2  Never  again  did  he  meet  Joan. 

The  news  of  Patay  spread  quickly  to  all  parts  of 
France.  In  Paris  the  partisans  of  England  and  Bur- 
gundy were  in  great  fear.  On  Tuesday,  when  the  news 
of  the  battle  reached  the  city,  there  was  a  riot,  and  many 
believed  that  the  victorious  French  were  close  on  the 
heels  of  the  English  fugitives.  It  was  still  dangerous 
to  be  called  an  Armagnac,  but  it  was  whispered  about 
the  city  that  the  English  had  been  routed  almost  without 

1  P.  iv.  16,  Cagny. 

2  P.  iv.  245,  Chron.  Puc. ;  319,  Gruel.    See  Lobineau,  Hist.  Bretagne, 
L  579;  P.  iv.  17,  Cagny;  46,  Berry;  179,  Journ.  Siege. 


140  JOAN   OF  AEC. 

resistance,  and  men's  fear  of  them  was  therefore  much 
lessened.1 

On  the  other  hand,  when  the  mayor  of  La  Rochelle 
received  the  bulletin  sent  by  Charles,  he  ordered  at  once 
that  all  the  bells  should  be  rung,  that  all  citizens  should 
assemble  in  their  parish  churches  to  hear  a  Te  Deum, 
and  that  bonfires  should  be  lighted  at  the  corners  of  the 
streets.  On  the  next  day  there  was  a  general  procession 
to  the  church  of  Our  Lady,  and  each  child  in  La  Rochelle 
was  bribed  by  a  cake  to  run  before  the  crowd  and  shout 
"Noel"  for  joy.2 

In  Orleans,  as  was  natural,  the  joy  was  greatest.  The 
people  poured  out  to  welcome  Joan,  and  filled  the 
churches,  thanking  "God,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the 
blessed  Saints  of  Paradise  for  the  mercy  and  the  honor 
which  our  Lord  had  shown  to  the  king  and  to  them 
all."3  At  this  time  the  agents  of  the  duke  of  Orleans, 
acting  under  orders  either  sent  by  him  from  England  or 
given  by  the  Bastard  in  his  behalf,  provided  for  Joan 
clothes  made  of  the  richest  stuffs,  of  red  and  green,  his 
own  colors,  as  if  she  were  his  champion.  The  blouse  was 
green,  dark  green  to  denote  his  captivity;  the  long  flow- 
ing cloak  worn  over  it  was  made  of  fine  crimson  cloth  of 
Brussels.4 

It  may  seem  strange  to  some  readers  that  Joan,  the 
messenger  of  God,  should  have  allowed  herself  to  be 
gorgeously  dressed.  Probably  she  did  not  think  that 
her  mission  was  concerned  with  clothes  of  one  sort  or 
another.  Presents  of  fine  clothing  and  of  rich  stuffs 
were  then  common,  and  it  was  characteristic  of  Joan  to 
take  life  as  she  found  it,  so  that  she  was  not  hindered 
in  her  own  work.  Besides,  she  was  no  ascetic,  and,  like 

1  P.  iv.  452,  Fauquemberque;  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429. 

-  Rel.  ined.,  31. 

8  P.  iv.  16,  Cagny. 

4  P.  v.  112.     See  Vallet  de  Viriville,  Charles  VII.,  ii.  136,  n. 


THE   MARCH  TO   EHEIMS.  141 

other  girls  everywhere,  may  well  have  taken  innocent 
pleasure  in  gay  colors.  From  the  time  she  reached  court 
until  she  became  a  prisoner,  wherever  her  dress  is  de- 
scribed, it  is  always  rich  and  brilliant. 

The  people  of  Orleans  expected  Charles  to  come  to 
their  city,  since  it  was  threatened  no  longer,  and  they 
decked  their  streets  to  welcome  him.1  He  gave  no  sign 
of  leaving  Sully,  however,  where  La  Tremoille  had  him 
under  complete  control,  and  so,  on  Monday  or  Tuesday,2 
Joan  set  out  from  Orleans  and  joined  him,  meaning  to 
urge  his  instant  departure  for  Rheims.  Again  there  was 
delay  and  doubt.3  La  Tremoille  dreaded  an  advance; 
indeed,  in  the  excitement  of  men's  minds,  he  dreaded 
everything.  Others  honestly  thought  it  madness  to  march 
more  than  a  hundred  miles  through  a  hostile  country  full 
of  fortified  towns,  with  an  active  enemy  on  both  flanks  and 
in  the  rear.  A  day  or  two  after  Joan's  arrival  at  Sully, 
Charles  left  the  place  for  some  unknown  reason,  crossed 
to  the  north  bank  of  the  Loire,  and  went  to  Chateauneuf, 
about  fifteen  miles  down  the  river,  and  so  much  nearer 
Orleans.  Again  Joan  made  to  him  a  personal  appeal. 
Little  by  little  she  was  learning  that  even  the  messenger 
of  God  can  do  nothing  if  men  will  not  heed  the  message. 
Her  anxiety  and  discouragement  touched  the  king,  who 
was  not  an  ill-natured  man,  and  he  tried  to  soothe  her. 
With  tears  in  her  eyes  she  told  him  that  he  must  not 
hesitate,  and  that  he  would  gain  his  whole  realm,  and 
would  shortly  be  crowned.4 

A  council  of  war  was  held ;  moved  by  Joan's  entreaties 
or  directed  by  the  courage  with  which  she  had  inspired 
almost  all  Frenchmen,  it  decided  to  risk  an  advance. 

1  P.  iv.  178,  Journ.  Siege  ;  245,  Chron.  Puc. 

2  June  20,  21. 

3  "  Rex  festinanter  tendit  ad  consecrationem."      P.  v.  121,  Bou- 
lainvilliers. 

*  P.  iii.  116,  Simon  Charles  ;  iv.  245,  Chron.  Puc. 


142  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

Gien  was  appointed  as  the  rendezvous,  whither  Charles 
went  at  once.  The  queen  was  sent  for,  that  she,  too, 
June  24-  might  be  crowned,  and  Joan  returned  to  Orleans 
27, 1429.  £o  kring  Up  the  troops  and  munitions  which  had 
been  left  in  that  city.  On  Friday  l  she  also  started  for 
Gien.2 

Thither  flocked  all  sorts  of  men  from  all  parts  of  loyal 
France.  The  royal  treasury  was  almost  empty,  the  pay 
was  the  scantiest,  but  enthusiasm  took  the  place  of  money 
and  even  of  arms.  The  war  had  made  some  gentlemen 
of  good  family  very  poor.  Bueil,  one  of  the  French 
leaders,  tells  us  that  he  began  life  by  eking  out  his  rags 
with  the  washing  stolen  from  a  neighboring  castle.3 
Many  of  these  gentlemen,  much  too  poor  to  arm  or  to 
mount  themselves  as  became  their  station,  joined  the 
expedition  on  foot  armed  only  with  bows  or  knives. 
"Each  one  of  them,"  says  a  chronicler,  "had  great  belief 
that  by  means  of  Joan  much  good  would  come  to  the 
realm  of  France,  and  so  they  desired  earnestly  to  serve 
under  her,  and  to  learn  her  deeds,  as  if  the  matter  were 
God's  doing."4  There  were  wonders  in  the  air;  in 
Poitou  men  saw  knights  in  full  armor  blazing  with  fire 
ride  through  the  sky,  threatening  ruin  to  the  duke  of 
Brittany  for  his  friendliness  to  the  English.5  All  Europe 
was  curious,  and  letters  were  sent  off  to  foreign  princes, 
which  gave  full  account  of  Joan's  exploits,  embellished 
with  many  myths  and  marvels.6  If  La  Tremoille  and 
his  friends  had  been  willing,  it  was  said,  the  royal  army 
might  have  been  large  enough  to  drive  the  English  from 

1  June  24. 

2  Mary  of  Anjou  had  been  in  Bourges  for  some  time  ;  see  P.  iii.  85, 
La  Touroulde  ;  iv.  180,  Journ.  Siege ;  247,  Chron.  Puc.     For  Joan's 
movements,  see  iv.  17,  Cagny. 

3  See  Jouvencel,  ed.  Lecestre,  i.  16,  20,  23, 24;  P.  iv.  71,  J.  Chartier. 
*  P.  iv.  248,  Chron.  Puc. 

6  P.  v.  121. 

6  See  P.  v.  99,  114,  and  the  letter  of  J.  de  Bourbon,  already  cited. 


THE   MARCH   TO    RHEIMS.  143 

France.  But  no  one  dared  to  speak  openly  against  the 
favorite,  though  all  knew  that  the  fault  was  his.1 

Arrived  at  Gien  in  the  midst  of  all  this  excitement, 
Joan  wrote  on  Saturday  to  the  "Gentle  loyal  French- 
men" of  Tournai.  Alone  of  all  the  cities  in  northern 
France,  Tournai  had  been  faithful  to  Charles;  for  a  hun- 
dred miles  about  it,  the  country  was  ruled  by  English 
and  Burgundians.  Joan's  letter  to  the  citizens  was  full 
of  her  usual  confidence,  which  had  been  confirmed  by  the 
decision  to  march  on  Rheims.  After  telling  them  of  her 
victories,  "  Keep  yourselves  good  loyal  Frenchmen,  I  pray 
you,"  she  wrote;  "and  I  pray  and  request  that  you  hold 
yourselves  ready  to  come  to  the  consecration  of  the  gentle 
king  Charles  at  Rheims,  where  we  shall  come  shortly.  To 
God  I  commend  you ;  may  God  have  you  in  his  keeping, 
and  give  you  grace  to  maintain  the  good  quarrel  of  the 
realm  of  France."2 

Although  the  expedition  had  been  agreed  upon  in  the- 
ory, yet  there  was  so  much  dispute  over  its  line  of  march 
as  to  make  probable  an  indefinite  delay.  From  Gien 
westward  to  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  Charles's  enemies  had  no 
post  on  the  Loire;  but  higher  up  the  river,  nearly  south 
of  Gien,3  the  Anglo-Burgundians  held  the  fortresses  of 
Bonny,  Cosne,  and  La  Charite.4  The  garrisons  of  these 
places,  if  strong  enough  to  take  the  field,  were  so  placed 
that  they  could  easily  cut  the  king's  line  of  communica- 
tions as  he  marched  on  Rheims,  and  therefore  some  of  his 
councilors  urged  him  to  reduce  these  towns  before  his  de- 
parture. In  giving  this  advice,  they  talked  a  deal  about 
going  to  Rheims  by  way  of  La  Charite ;  but  as  the  former 

1  See  P.  iv.  71,  J.  Chartier  ;  179,  Journ.  Siege. 

2  P.  v.  123.     For  the  condition  of  Tournai,  see  Monstrelet,  Bk. 
II.  chaps,  vi.,  xv.,  cxxxix.  ;  Beaucourt,  ii.  9,  note. 

3  It  must  be  remembered  that  above  Gien  the  Loire  flows  nearly 
due  north. 

4  La  Charitd  is  highest  on  the  river,  Bonny  lowest. 


144  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

is  a  hundred  and  thirty  miles  northeast  of  Gien,  while 
the  latter  is  forty  miles  to  the  south,  it  may  easily  be  seen 
how  great  would  have  been  the  delay  caused  by  taking 
this  road,  apart  from  the  time  needed  to  reduce  two  or 
three  strong  fortresses.  Joan's  voices  told  her  that  the 
king  could  reach  Rheims  in  safety,  if  he  would  but  try ; 
both  she  and  AlenQon  doubtless  wished  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  English  demoralization  and  want  of  troops, 
and  so  they  strongly  opposed  any  deviation  from  the 
direct  line  of  march.1  The  fortune  of  war  favored  their 
plans.  On  Sunday,  Bonny  surrendered  to  the  admiral  of 
France,2  and  the  nearest  force  of  the  enemy  was  thus 
disposed  of.3  On  Monday,4  Joan  crossed  the  Loire  with 
some  of  her  troops,  so  as  to  excite  the  king  to  follow  her. 
June  29,  On  Wednesday,  June  29,  he,  or  his  council  for 
1429.  him,  came  to  a  decision,  and  the  march  began.5 
Before  describing  it  in  detail,  it  is  necessary  to  review 
briefly  the  condition  of  France  as  changed  by  the  French 
successes  about  Orleans,  and  to  consider  the  advantages 
and  the  difficulties  attending  an  advance  on  Rheims. 

The  battle  of  Patay  not  only  was  a  defeat  for  the  Eng- 
lish, but  it  practically  destroyed  their  only  force  which 
was  fit  to  take  the  field.  The  regent  Bedford,  both  a 
soldier  and  a  statesman,  labored  incessantly  to  gather 
fresh  troops,  but  time  was  needed  to  bring  them  from 
England,  and  he  could  not  at  once  interpose  an  army  to 
prevent  the  march  of  Charles  upon  Rheims.  There  were 
cities,  indeed,  through  or  past  which  Charles  must  march, 
and  which  by  an  obstinate  resistance  might  delay  him 
until  Bedford  should  have  gathered  his  army,  but  the 
condition  of  these  cities  was  peculiar.  Most  of  them  had 
fallen  to  the  Anglo-Burgundians  about  the  time  of  the 

1  See  p.  iv.  17,  Cagny  ;  180,  Journ.  Siege;  248,  Chron.  Puc. 

2  Louis  of  Culant. 

3  P.  iv.  179,  Journ.  Siege  ;  246,  Chron.  Puc.  4  June  27. 
6  P.  iv.  17,  Cagny  ;  71,  J.  Chartier  ;  180,  Journ.  Siege. 


THE   MARCH   TO   RHEIMS.  145 

treaty  of  Troyes  (1420).  Charles  VI.  was  then  king  of 
France,  recognized  by  Armagnacs  and  Anglo-Burgun- 
dians  alike,  though  the  latter  controlled  his  person  and 
both  claimed  the  exclusive  right  to  speak  in  his  name. 
The  cities,  therefore,  made  little  difficulty  in  adhering  to 
the  treaty,  though  it  recognized  as  the  crazy  king's  heir 
his  son-in-law  Henry  V.,  rather  than  his  son  Charles. 
They  had  no  love  of  the  Armagnac  brigands  and  adven- 
turers, who  were  in  power  at  the  Dauphin's  court.  Their 
municipal  charters  were  treated  with  decent  respect,  for 
Bedford  assumed  to  govern  by  law,  and  not  as  a  con- 
queror, and  therefore  they  made  no  attempt  to  revolt 
when  the  baby  Henry,  their  old  king's  grandson,  was 
proclaimed  his  successor.  As  the  war  dragged  on  year 
after  year,  however,  their  patriotism  was  gradually 
aroused.  Outside  of  Paris  the  fierce  partisan  hatred  of 
the  Armagnacs  had  almost  disappeared,  and  after  the 
help  of  Heaven  had  been  plainly  given  to  Charles  VII., 
few  were  zealous  to  oppose  his  march.  The  men  of 
Champagne  had  no  intention  of  revolting  actively  against 
the  English  rule.  Officially,  Charles  was  still  their 
enemy;  but  to  fight  for  a  defeated  foreigner  against  a 
victorious  countryman  seemed  to  them  absurd. 

It  is  true  that  there  were  garrisons  in  most  of  these 
places,  commanded  by  captains  in  the  pay  of  the  English. 
But  the  garrisons  were  small,  —  reduced,  perhaps,  to 
reinforce  the  army  which  had  been  defeated  at  Patay,  — 
and  without  help  from  the  trained  bands  of  the  city,  they 
were  unable  to  offer  decided  resistance  to  Charles.  Their 
commanders  were  old  Burgundian  partisans  or  noblemen 
who  had  accepted  English  rule.  They  would  not  betray 
their  posts,  but  they  could  not  forget  that  at  some  time 
they  might  become  Charles's  subjects;  and,  besides,  they 
were  embarrassed  by  the  vacillation  of  the  duke  of  Bur- 
gundy, to  whom  they  looked  for  guidance.  In  a  word, 
the  obstacles  to  Charles's  advance  were  very  formidable 


146  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

to  look  at,  and  would  really  be  formidable  if  at  any  time 
he  should  meet  with  a  serious  check;  but  should  he  meet 
with  any  decided  success,  they  were  of  a  sort  to  disappear 
at  once  and  altogether. 

The  third  element  in  the  situation  was  Philip  the 
Good,  duke  of  Burgundy.  His  anger  over  his  father's 
murder  had  cooled  in  ten  years,  and  during  that  time  he 
had  had  many  disagreements  with  the  English.  More 
than  once  he  had  begun  to  negotiate  with  Charles  and 
had  made  truces  with  him  for  part  of  their  possessions.1 
He  seems  to  have  had  an  underlying  belief  that  at  some 
time  and  somehow  Charles  would  become  king  of  France, 
—  though  how  much  would  be  left  of  the  kingdom  after 
satisfying  Philip's  ambition  and  the  claims  he  should 
choose  to  make  on  behalf  of  his  English  allies  might  be 
uncertain.  Now  that  Charles  had  met  with  unexpected 
success,  Philip  was  urged  by  jealousy  to  draw  close  to 
Bedford.  He  did  not  answer  the  letter  that  Joan  wrote 
him  from  Gien,  and  he  joined  the  regent  in  Paris;  on 
the  other  hand,  he  still  held  himself  ready  to  treat  with 
Charles.  His  vacillation  perplexed  everybody,  and  no 
one  more  than  his  own  servants.  His  councilors  at  Di- 
jon, probably  left  to  their  own  devices,  sent  messengers 
to  La  Tre'moille  to  ask  what  the  French  intended  to  do. 
The  precise  answer  which  the  favorite  gave  we  do  not 
know,  but  its  purport  may  be  guessed  by  his  subsequent 
action.2 

On  leaving  Gien  the  royal  army  marched  against  Au- 
xerre,  about  fifty  miles  to  the  eastward,  to  which 
July  5,       town  and  to  others  near  by  Charles  had  sent  let- 
ters commanding  submission.     One  small  place  3 
on  the  road  acknowledged  him ;  but  the  men  of  Auxerre 

1  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  357,  361, 370, 373,  384, 389,  390, 401,  419 ;  Plan- 
cher,  Hist.  Bourgogne,  iv.  126. 

2  Beaucourt,  ii.  401. 

8  St.  Fargeau,  on  the  Loing.     P.  iv.  377,  Monstrelet. 


THE   MARCH   TO   RHEIMS.  147 

were  unwilling  to  do  so,  more  because  they  were  afraid  to 
open  their  gates  to  an  army  of  Armagnacs  than  because 
they  were  hostile  to  his  claim  to  the  throne.  They 
looked  to  the  duke  of  Burgundy  much  more  than  to  the 
English.  Their  agents,  perhaps  joining  those  of  the  Bur- 
gundian  council  at  Dijon,  sought  out  La  Tremoille  and 
offered  him  money  to  spare  the  city  from  assault.  He 
was  able  to  carry  out  the  corrupt  bargain,  probably  by 
urging  that  Philip  ought  to  be  kept  in  good  humor, 
though  Joan  and  some  of  the  captains  declared  it  would 
be  easy  to  take  the  city.  Auxerre  supplied  the  hungry 
army  with  food,  made  some  vague  promise  of  submission 
if  the  cities  of  Champagne  should  yield,  and  kept  its 
gates  safely  shut.  With  somewhat  diminished  prestige 
and  with  complaints  of  the  favorite,  the  army  left  Au- 
xerre on  July  2  or  3,  and  marched  on  Troyes,  the  capital 
of  Champagne,  about  forty  miles  to  the  northeast.1 

Whatever  might  be  the  divisions  in  the  royal  army, 
the  whole  province  of  Champagne  was  greatly  excited 
and  the  English  partisans  were  much  alarmed.  The 
country  was  full  of  wild  rumors.  An  English  captain 
wrote  to  the  men  of  Kheims  that  Charles  was  advancing 
by  way  of  Montargis,  some  sixty  miles  distant  from  the 
road  he  actually  took.2  In  other  places  it  was  reported 
that  Auxerre  had  been  taken  by  storm  and  four  thousand 
of  its  inhabitants  put  to  the  sword.3  No  city  was  sure 
of  its  neighbor.  Each  wondered  if  the  other  would  open 
its  gates  to  Charles,  each  feared  to  be  the  last  or  to  set 
the  example. 

Thus  the  men  of  Troyes,  on  July  1,  wrote  to  Eheims, 
knowing  that  Rheims  was  Charles's  ultimate  destination, 
and  hearing  that  some  of  its  citizens  had  promised  to 

1  P.  iv.  72,  J.  Chartier  ;  181,  Journ.  Siege  ;  377,  Monstrelet.     See 
Plancher,  Hist.  Bourgogne,  iv.  130  ;  J.  dans  les  chroniques  messines.  dd. 
de  Bouteiller,  21. 

2  P.  iv.  286.  3  Letter  of  J.  de  Bourbon,  cited  above. 


148  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

open  its  gates  to  him.  They  themselves  would  do  nothing 
of  the  sort,  so  wrote  the  men  of  Troyes,  but  would  "up- 
hold the  cause  of  the  king  [Henry  VI.]  and  of  the  duke 
of  Burgundy  even  to  death  inclusive." 1  By  July  4  or  5, 
the  advancing  army  was  come  within  fifteen  or  twenty 
miles  of  Troyes,2  and  letters  were  sent  forward  to  that 
city  both  from  Charles  and  from  Joan.  The  former 
demanded  admittance  and  promised  amnesty  for  all  past 
offenses,  the  latter  was  in  different  style.  "My  very 
dear  and  good  friends,  if  indeed  you  all  are  such,"  it  be- 
gan, "lords,  burghers,  and  citizens  of  the  town  of  Troyes, 
Joan  the  Maid  in  the  name  of  the  King  of  Heaven,  her 
rightful  and  sovereign  Lord,  in  whose  royal  service  she 
daily  stands,  bids  you  give  true  obedience  to  the  gentle 
king  of  France,3  who  will  shortly  be  at  Rheims  and  Paris, 
and  in  the  good  towns  of  his  holy  realm,  by  the  aid  of 
King  Jesus,  come  what  may.  Loyal  Frenchmen,  come 
before  king  Charles  without  fail,  and  fear  not  for  your 
bodies  or  your  goods,  if  so  be  that  you  come ;  and  if  you 
do  not  come  I  promise  you  on  your  lives  that  with  God's 
help  we  will  enter  into  all  the  towns  which  belong  to  this 
holy  realm,  and  will  make  a  firm  peace,  come  what  may. 
To  God  I  commend  you.  God  have  you  in  his  keeping, 
if  such  be  his  pleasure.  Answer  shortly."4 

These  letters  reached  Troyes,  as  it  seems,  early  on  the 
morning   of  July  5,  and   at   once  copies  of   them  were 

1  P.  iv.  286,  287. 

2  On  July  4  Charles  VII.  wrote  to  Rheims  from  Brinon  PArch- 
eveque.     Jadart,  J.  a  Reims,  84.      Joan  wrote  to  Troyes  from  St. 
Fale,  Tuesday,  July  4.     P.  iv.  288  (July  4  was  Monday).     Probably 
July  5  is  the  true  date,  as  St.  Fale  is  about  fifteen  miles  nearer  Troyes 
than  Brinon. 

3  Contrary  to  custom,  Joan  here  calls  Charles,  King  of  France. 
This  may  have  been  a  slip  of  the  scribe;  or  the  close  connection  of 
the  clause  with  the  name  of  Rheims  may  have  led  her,  perhaps  un- 
consciously, to  anticipate  the  coronation  by  a  few  days. 

4  P.  iv.  287. 


THE  MARCH   TO   RHEIMS.  149 

sent  on  to  Rheims,  with  assurances  that  Troyes  would 
hold  out  to  the  death.  Its  people  begged  the  men  j^y  ^ 
of  Rheims  to  have  pity  on  them,  and  to  send  to  1429m 
Bedford  and  to  Burgundy  for  help.  At  about  nine 
o'clock  in  the  morning  the  advance-guard  of  the  royal 
army  appeared,  and  formally  summoned  Troyes  to  sur- 
render. This  the  town  council  refused  to  do,  pleading 
by  way  of  excuse  an  oath  taken  to  the  duke  of  Burgundy. 
During  the  afternoon,  before  the  investment  of  the  city 
was  accomplished,  the  councilors  smuggled  away  another 
messenger  with  another  letter  to  the  men  of  Rheims,  again 
asserting  that  they  would  resist  to  the  death.  This  letter 
said  that  Joan  was  a  fool  full  of  the  Devil,  whose  letter 
had  neither  rhyme  nor  reason,  and  had  been  thrown  into 
the  fire  after  being  heartily  laughed  at.  Again  the  men 
of  Rheims  were  warned  that  some  of  their  own  people 
were  traitors,  and  that  they  must  be  on  their  guard.1 
We  shall  see  later  what  action  was  taken  by  the  men  of 
Rheims  in  consequence  of  this  letter  and  of  the  rest  of 
the  correspondence. 

For  several  days  the  royal  army  was  encamped  about 
Troyes  in  the  hope  that  the  city  would  surren-  juiy5_8) 
der.  There  was  some  parleying  and  an  occa-  1429> 
sional  skirmish,  but  nothing  of  importance,  and  the 
burghers  doubtless  expected  the  terms  granted  to  Au- 
xerre.  Toward  the  end  of  the  week  the  supplies  of  the 
besiegers  ran  low.  All  realized  that  it  was  impossible  to 
stay  where  they  were  much  longer,  and  a  council  of  war 
was  held,  attended  by  civilians  as  well  as  by  the  captains, 
but  not  by  Joan.  The  archbishop  of  Rheims,  chancellor 
of  France,  a  creature  of  La  Tremoille,  spoke  of  the  want 
of  food  and  money,  artillery  and  men,  of  the  strength 
of  Troyes,  and  of  the  obstinacy  of  its  inhabitants.  Gien, 
the  base  of  supplies,  was  thirty  leagues  away,  and  the 
army  was  in  peril.  When  he  had  finished,  he  called 
1  P.  iv.  289  et  seq. 


150  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

upon  the  councilors,  one  after  another,  for  their  opinion. 
Nearly  all  were  against  continuing  the  siege,  arguing 
that  Troyes  was  stronger  than  Auxerre,  which  they  had 
not  been  able  to  take ;  some  were  for  going  home,  others 
for  passing  by  the  place  and  struggling  on  toward 
Rheims,  with  hostile  fortresses  in  their  rear.  When  it 
came  to  the  turn  of  Robert  le  MaQon,  formerly  councilor 
of  Charles  VI.  and  once  chancellor  himself,1  he  said  that 
the  march  had  been  undertaken,  in  reliance  neither  upon 
the  number  of  their  troops  nor  upon  the  richness  of  the 
treasury,  but  because  Joan  the  Maid  advised  them  that 
such  was  the  will  of  God.  He  suggested,  therefore,  that 
she  should  be  called  to  the  council.  When  she  came  in, 
the  archbishop  told  her  the  substance  of  the  debate,  where- 
upon she  turned  to  the  king,  and  asked  if  she  should  be 
believed.  He  answered  that  this  depended  upon  her 
words.  "Good  Dauphin,"  she  said,  "command  your 
people  to  advance  and  besiege  Troyes,  and  do  not  delay 
longer  over  your  councils;  for  in  God's  name,  before 
three  days  I  will  bring  you  into  Troyes,  by  favor  or  force 
or  valor,  and  false  Burgundy  shall  be  greatly  amazed." 
The  archbishop  said  they  would  wait  six  days  for  such  a 
result,  but  doubted  if  it  could  be  accomplished ;  whereat 
she  told  him  not  to  doubt.  Thereupon  the  council  broke 
up.2 

"Immediately,"  says  the  Bastard,  "she  crossed  the 
river  with  the  royal  army,  pitched  tents  close  to  the 
walls,  and  labored  with  a  diligence  that  not  two  or  three 
most  experienced  and  renowned  captains  could  have 
shown.  She  worked  so  hard  through  the  night  that  on 
the  morrow  the  bishop  and  citizens  submitted  in  fear  and 
trembling.  Afterwards  it  was  found  out  that  from  the 
time  when  she  advised  the  king  not  to  withdraw  from  be- 

1  See  Beaucourt,  i.  64. 

2  P.  iii.  13 ,  Bastard  ;  117,  S.  Charles  ;  iv.  72,  J.  Chartier ;  181, 
Journ.  Siege. 


THE  MAECH   TO   RHEIMS.  151 

fore  the  city,  the  citizens  lost  heart,  and  had  no  wish  but 
to  escape  and  flee  to  the  churches."1  In  fact,  it  July  9, 
needed  but  a  show  of  resolution  to  destroy  once  1429> 
for  all  the  fictitious  devotion  of  Troyes  to  the  fortunes 
of  England  and  Burgundy.  The  garrison  was  small ;  out- 
side of  it  there  was  no  real  opposition  to  Charles,  and  the 
bishop  seems  to  have  favored  him  strongly.  A  deputation 
was  sent  to  the  king  to  treat  for  terms  of  peace.  It  was 
agreed  that  the  soldiers  should  be  allowed  to  retire  with 
their  property ;  that  the  churchmen  appointed  to  prefer- 
ment under  King  Henry  should  all  be  confirmed  by  King 
Charles ;  that  no  garrison  should  be  left  in  the  town,  no 
new  taxes  imposed;  that  the  municipal  franchises  should 
be  respected,  and  amnesty  granted  to  all.2 

At  this  time  there  was  in  the  city  of  Troyes  one 
Friar  Richard,  a  Franciscan,  who  had  made  much  stir 
throughout  northeastern  France.  During  Advent  he  had 
preached  in  Champagne,  and  two  or  three  months  later 
had  gone  to  Paris,  where  thousands  of  people  slept  on 
the  ground  over  night  that  they  might  get  good  places 
to  hear  him  the  next  day.  He  preached  that  Antichrist, 
foretold  by  Scripture,  was  already  born,  and  he  so 
wrought  upon  his  hearers  that  in  Paris  more  than  one 
hundred  bonfires  might  be  seen,  in  which  the  men  burnt 
their  cards  and  gaming-tables,  the  women  their  head- 
dresses and  pads  and  gewgaws;  indeed,  the  ten  sermons 
which  he  delivered  turned  more  people  to  devotion  than 
all  the  sermoners  who  had  been  in  Paris  for  a  hun- 
dred years.3  After  a  few  weeks  he  was  forced  to  leave 
the  city,  because  either  his  theology  or  his  politics  was 

1  P.  iii.  13,  14,  Bastard. 

2  Recueil  des  Ordonnances,  xiii.  142.     See  P.  iv.  183,  Journ.  Siege  • 
v.  352. 

3  Such  revivals  were  not  uncommon.     In  1428  a  Carmelite  friar 
had  great   success   in  northern   France.     Four  years   later   he  was 
burnt  at  Rome  as  a  heretic.     Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chaps,  liii.,  cxxvii. 


152  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

suspected,  and  he  had  found  his  way  back  to  Troyes, 
where  he  enjoyed  a  great  reputation.  This  man,  honest, 
fervid,  emotional,  living  in  the  belief  that  God  and  Anti- 
christ were  shortly  to  join  battle  on  the  earth,  went  out 
of  Troyes  while  the  negotiations  were  going  on,  urged 
by  the  citizens  or  by  his  own  curiosity  to  discover  what 
sort  of  a  creature  this  Maid  might  be  who  called  herself 
the  messenger  of  God.1 

With  all  his  zeal,  Friar  Richard  was  not  the  man  to 
neglect  reasonable  precautions.  Only  a  few  days  before 
the  men  of  Troyes  had  called  Joan  the  devil's  fool,  or  a 
"lyme  of  the  Feende,"  as  the  English  put  it.2  When 
the  friar  caught  sight  of  her,  accordingly,  he  began  to 
cross  himself  vigorously,  and  to  sprinkle  holy  water. 
Joan's  sense  of  the  ridiculous  was  keen,  and  she  told 
him  to  come  on  boldly,  for  she  had  no  intention  of  flying 
away  from  him.  They  had  some  conversation  together, 
and  the  good  man  was  so  completely  converted  that  he 
rushed  back  into  Troyes  and  loudly  declared  that  she 
was  a  holy  maid  sent  by  God,  who  could,  if  she  wished, 
cause  the  French  men  at  arms  to  enter  Troyes  by  flying 
over  the  walls.  He  joined  himself  to  the  royal  expedi- 
tion and  followed  Joan  until,  as  we  shall  see,  his  love 
of  the  marvelous  was  tickled  by  a  new-comer.  When 
the  Burgundians  of  Paris  heard  of  his  apostasy,  with 
delightful  logic  they  cursed  God  and  the  saints,  took  to 
gaming  again,  and  threw  into  the  Seine  the  medals  he 
had  distributed  with  the  monogram  of  Jesus  stamped  on 
them.3 

On  Sunday,  July  10,  Charles  entered  Troyes,  and  was 

1  See  Luce,  ccxlv.,  clxxviii.,  ccxxvii. ;  Chapotin,  J.  et  les  Dominicains; 
Journ.  Bourg.,  nnn.  1429.   T.  Basin,  ed.  Quicherat,  iv.  103;  Rev.  Bleuet 
t.  xlix.  201  ;  P.  i.  99,  102,  J.'s  test.  ;  Lime  des  Trahisons,  in  Chron. 
Belg.  ined.,  ii.  197. 

2  See  P.  v.  136. 

3  P.  i.  100,  J.'s  test. ;  Rel.  ined.,  33  ;  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429. 


THE   MARCH   TO    RHEIMS.  153 

royally  received.     As  the  old  garrison  marched  away,  the 
soldiers  undertook  to  carry  with  them  their  pris-   juiy  ^ 
oners,  alleging  that  these  were  part  of  the  prop-   142!)- 
erty   guaranteed    by    the    capitulation.     Joan    saw  the 
wretched  men  driven  along ;  she  was  indignant  that  her 
countrymen  should  be  carried  into  captivity  before  the 
eyes  of  her  victorious  army,  and  she  refused  to  allow  it. 
The  terms  of  the  treaty,  as  understood  at  the  time,  seem 
to  have  justified  the  garrison,  however,  and  the  king  was 
compelled  to  pay  the  captors  a  reasonable  ransom.1 

With  the  fall  of  Troyes,  all  opposition  to  Charles  in 
Champagne  collapsed.  The  men  of  Troyes  wrote  juiy  10_ 
at  once  to  Rheims,  explaining  their  change  of  16' 1429> 
front  as  best  they  might,  and  calling  Charles  the  prince 
of  the  greatest  wisdom,  understanding,  and  valor  ever 
born  to  the  noble  house  of  France.  On  the  day  follow- 
ing its  entry  into  Troyes,  the  army  marched  on  Chalons, 
which  within  a  week  had  declared  its  intention  of  resist- 
ing the  royalists  with  all  its  might.  It  now  eagerly 
opened  its  gates,  and  in  a  letter  to  Eheims,  described  the 
sweet,  gracious,  pitiful,  and  compassionate  person  of 
Charles,  his  noble  demeanor  and  high  understanding,  and 
counseled  the  men  of  Rheims  to  send  their  representa- 
tives to  meet  him  without  delay.2 

It  was  not  in  the  nature  of  the  men  of  Rheims  to  with- 
stand this  reasoning  and  eloquence.  Less  than  a  fort- 
night before,  they  had  professed  devotion  to  their  Anglo- 
Burgundian  rulers,  and  had  informed  them  of  all  that 
went  on.  A  little  later,  they  had  ordered  a  religious 
procession  for  the  ambiguous  purpose  of  moving  the 
people  to  peace,  love,  and  obedience.  They  had  gone  so 
far  as  to  summon  in  haste  to  Rheims  the  captain  of  the 
city,  who  was  then  absent,  but  they  had  requested  him  to 

1  P.  iv.  76,  J.  Chartier;  184,  Chron.  Puc.;  252,  Journ.  Siege;  285, 
296;  v.  63,  Martial  d'Auvergne;  130;  Jadart,  85. 
'  2  P.  iv.  18,  Cagny;  298. 


154  JOAN   OP  AKC. 

limit  his  escort  to  forty  or  fifty  horsemen.  This  the  cap- 
tain declined  to  do,  lest  he  should  be  made  a  prisoner. 
Assembling  a  considerable  force,  he  proposed  to  defend 
the  city  until  the  duke  of  Burgundy  should  get  together 
an  army  for  its  relief,  but,  after  some  parleying,  the  men 
of  Klieirns  declined  to  admit  this  force  within  their  walls. 
They  continued,  however,  to  listen  to  letters  from  the 
captain  and  from  others,  who  promised  help ;  they  made 
light  of  the  surrender  of  Troyes,  and  ridiculed  Joan, 
saying  that  she  could  not  bear  comparison  with  a  well- 
known  female  fool  of  the  duke's.  When  Charles  actu- 
ally reached  Chalons,  Rheims  hesitated  no  longer.  Some 
of  the  principal  men  of  the  town  went  to  meet  him  at  the 
castle  of  Sept  Saux,  about  fifteen  miles  distant,  and  there 
received  full  and  general  pardon  for  all  past  offenses.1 

The  chancellor  entered  his  archiepiscopal  city  on  Sat- 
urday morning;  after  dinner  the  king  and  Joan  rode 
in  with  many  councilors  and  captains.  The  burghers 
crowded  the  streets  and  gave  them  a  hearty  welcome, 
showing,  as  was  natural,  great  curiosity  to  see  Joan.2 

Throughout  the  march  she  had  ridden  armed  like  the 
other  captains,  sometimes  with  the  king,  sometimes  in  the 
van,  sometimes  covering  the  rear,  always  ready  for  sud- 
den alarm  or  for  her  turn  at  mounting  guard.  She  did 
not  command  the  army,  indeed,  but  at  the  critical  mo- 
ment of  the  campaign  it  was  her  advice  that  brought 
about  the  surrender  of  Troyes,  and  the  demonstration 
against  the  city  was  made  under  her  direction.  She  had 
the  habit,  about  dusk,  when  the  army  was  encamped  for 
the  night,  of  going  into  some  church  to  pray.  The  bells 
were  rung,  the  friars  who  followed  the  army  gathered 
there,  and  she  caused  them  to  sing  a  hymn  to  the  Virgin.3 

1  P.  iv.  292  et  seq.;  Jadart,  116.     See  iv.  184,  Journ.  Siege;  378, 
Monstrelet  ;  Luce,  clxxiii.     For  the  condition  of  Rheims,  see  Varin, 
Arch.  Leg.  Reims,  Stat.  t.  i.  529,  547,  738  et  seq. 

2  P.  iv.  19,  Cagny  ;  185,  Journ.  Siege. 

8  P.  iii.  14,  Bastard  ;  see  v.  13,  Christine  de  Pisan  ;  iv.  70,  J.  Char- 


THE   MARCH   TO   KHEIMS.  /       155 

/ 

When  it  was  possible,  she  slept  with  women,  —  with  girls 
of  her  own  age,  if  they  could  be  found;  otherwise  she 
kept  on  her  armor.1  If  she  was  asked,  sfae  would  stand 
godmother  for  some  little  baby  about  ^o  be  baptized.2 
She  always  tried  to  make  the  soldiers'*  lead  respectable 
lives,  but  apparently  without  universal  success,  for  when 
she  was  in  the  neighborhood .  of  Auxerre,  she  broke  the 
old  sword  she  had  received  froin  Fierbois  across  the  back 
of  some  loose  women  who  followed  the  troops.  The  su- 
perstitious king,  whose  own  loose  character  she  was  too 
loyal  to  suspect,  was  much  irritated,  and  told  her  that 
she  ought  to  use  a  stick  instead.3  At  Chalons  she  met 
some  old  acquaintances,  and  at  Eheims  she  found  her 

tier.  The  account  given  in  this  and  in  the  preceding  chapters  is 
believed  to  describe  the  position  Joan  held  in  the  French  army  with 
as  much  accuracy  as  is  possible  in  a  matter  of  the  sort.  The  position 
was  one  not  known  to  military  treatises  and  it  cannot  be  precisely 
denned  in  military  terms.  It  was  quite  supplementary  to  any  con- 
ceivable military  organization.  Probably  Joan  had  not  the  right  of 
military  command  over  any  one  outside  of  her  own  military  house- 
hold, perhaps  half  a  dozen  men  in  all.  At  the  same  time  she  as- 
sumed, and  was  allowed  and  intended  to  assume  in  certain  emergen- 
cies, to  command  every  one  whom  she  could  reach  by  her  voice,  and 
her  advice  was  sometimes  taken  and  followed,  even  when  opposed  to 
the  conclusions  previously  reached  by  the  commanding  general  or 
by  a  council  of  war.  She  probably  attributed  to  herself  a  military 
rank  somewhat  more  definite  than  that  she  really  possessed.  This 
her  belief  in  her  divine  mission  would  naturally  lead  her  to  do.  After 
making  every  possible  allowance  for  exaggeration,  and  for  the  pre- 
judice in  her  favor  which  existed  at  the  time  of  her  second  trial, 
however,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  her  common  sense,  courage, 
and  vigor,  as  well  as  her  claim  of  inspiration,  gave  her  compan- 
ions in  arms  great  respect  for  her  advice.  (See  p.  iii.  100,  Alengon; 
116,  Simon  Charles;  119,  Thib.  d'Armagnac.)  To  discuss  her  the- 
oretical rank  in  the  army  would  lead  to  no  important  conclusion;  her 
actual  position  and  influence  must  be  gathered  from  what  she  actually 
accomplished. 

1  P.  iii.  70,  Coutes;  81,  Beaucroix. 

2  P.  i.  103,  J.'s  test. 

3  P.  iii.  73,  Coutes;  81,  Beaucroix;  99,  Alencjon;  see  iv.  71,  93. 


156  JOAN  or  ARC. 

cousin  Laxart  and  her  father,  who  had  come  to  see  her 
triumph.  The  men  of  Rheims  paid  his  expenses  at  the 
hotel  of  the  Zebra,  and  gave  him  a  horse  to  ride  back  to 
Domremy.1  What  passed  between  him  and  Joan  is  not 
known;  at  this  time,  perhaps,  she  asked  and  obtained 
his  pardon  for  leaving  her  home  so  suddenly.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  she  did  not  forget  her  people.  A  few  days 
later,  in  her  favor  and  at  her  request,  "considering  the 
great,  high,  notable,  and  profitable  service  which  she  has 
rendered  and  daily  renders  us  in  the  recovery  of  our  king- 
dom," Charles  forever  exempted  the  people  of  Domremy 
and  Greux  from  all  taxes.  For  centuries  the  privilege 
lasted,  and  against  the  names  of  the  two  villages  in  the 
taxgatherer's  book  was  written,  "Nothing,  for  the  sake 
of  the  Maid."2 

1  P.  ii.  445,  Laxart;  iii.  198,  Lemaistre;  v.  141,  266,  267. 

2  P.  v.  137;  Lepage,  J.  est-elle  Lorraine  ?  2d  dissert.  361.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  exemption  of  Domremy  from  taxation  is  complicated  with 
that  of  the  political  geography  of  the  village,  discussed  in  chapter  ii. 
The  grant  of  exemption  published  by  M.  Quicherat  is  copied  from  a 
vidimus  of  1483,  formerly  preserved  in  the  archives  of  Greux,  but 
which  has  now  disappeared.     M.  Quicherat  mentions  a  confirmation 
of  Louis  XV.,  dated  1723,  which  sets  forth  an  ordinance  of  1656  and 
a  decree  of   1682.     M.  Lepage  publishes  a  document  of  1584,  in 
which  is  mentioned  the  grant  of  1429,  and  to  which  are  added  ex- 
tracts  from   the    taxgatherer's  register  in  1481  and  1572—74.      In 
these  last  is  to  be  found  the  entry  noted  in  the  text,  "  Ndant,  a  la 
Pucelle."     All  this  evidence  makes  it  reasonably  clear  that  the  grant 
is  genuine,  even  though  it  may  not  have  had  full  effect  in  the  whole 
village  of  Domremy,  owing  to   the  situation  of  the  village  in  the 
duchy  of  Bar.     Several  theories  are  possible.     First :  The  exemption 
may  have  covered   all  taxes  laid  by  the  royal  authority,  and  may 
have  been  more  complete  in  Greux,  and  less  complete  in  Domremy. 
Second  :  The  royal  officers  may  not  have  known  what  was  the  precise 
political  relation  of  the  village,  and  may  have  inserted  its  name  in 
the  grant  without  considering  what  the  effect  of  the  grant  would  be. 
Third:  The  exemption  may  have  been  inteilded  to  affect  only  that 
part  of  the  village  which  lay  north  of  the  Three  Fountains  Brook, 
and  which  was,  therefore,  contained  in  the  royal  domain. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

MONTEPILLOT. 

THROUGHOUT  Saturday  night  and  Sunday  morning  the 
royal  officers  labored  in  preparing  for  Charles's  juiy  17j 
consecration,  and  they  were  so  diligent  that  every-  1429* 
thing  was  made  ready  "as  if  it  had  been  ordered  a  year 
beforehand." 1  The  ampulla,  or  vessel  holding  the  sacred 
oil,  carried  by  a  dove  to  St.  Kemy  at  the  baptism  of 
Clovis,  was  brought  from  St.  Remy's  abbey  according  to 
custom.  Escorted  by  four  of  the  king's  captains  armed 
and  mounted,  the  abbot  rode  his  hackney  through  the 
great  west  door  of  the  cathedral  up  to  the  entrance  of  the 
choir,  where  he  dismounted  and  gave  the  precious  relic 
to  the  archbishop.2  The  elaborate  ceremony  of  consecra- 
tion was  duly  performed.  Of  the  six  spiritual  peers  of 
France,  two,  the  archbishop  of  Eheims  and  the  bishop 
of  Chalons,  were  actually  present ;  the  places  of  the  rest 
were  taken  by  the  Scotch  bishop  of  Orleans,  John  Kirk- 
michael,  and  by  other  bishops  of  the  king's  suite.  The 
duke  of  Burgundy  was  the  only  temporal  peer  of  France 
in  existence;  he  was  duly  called  by  the  king  at  arms 
standing  before  the  high  altar,  and  when  he  did  not  an- 
swer, his  place  was  taken  by  the  duke  of  Alen^on,  who 
knighted  the  king.  The  other  temporal  peers,  the  imagi- 
nary dukes  of  Aquitaine  and  Normandy,  and  counts  of 
Flanders,  Toulouse,  and  Champagne,  were  represented  by 
La  Tremoille,  young  Guy  of  Laval,  and  other  noblemen. 

1  P.  iv.  19,  Cagny;  v.  128. 

2  P.  iv.  185,  Journ.  Siege;  513,^neas  Sylvius;  v.  129.    See  Leber, 
Ceremonies  du  sacre,  332. 


158  JOAN   OP  ARC. 

Rene  of  Bar,  Charles's  brother-in-law,  attended  the  cere- 
mony, though  only  four  months  earlier  he  had  been  forced 
to  acknowledge  Henry  VI.1  He  was  accompanied  by 
Robert  of  Commercy,  the  freebooting  lord  to  whom  the 
men  of  Domremy  used  to  pay  blackmail.2  The  king's 
wonderful  success  had  already  gained  him  a  host  of  sup- 
porters. 

Close  to  Charles  throughout  the  ceremony  stood  Joan, 
holding  her  banner  in  her  hand ;  "  and  it  was  a  fine  thing 
to  see  her  fair  bearing,"  wrote  one  of  the  spectators.3 
When  the  ceremony  was  over,  according  to  one  story, 
she  burst  into  tears,  and,  kneeling  at  Charles's  feet,  said 
to  him,  "Gentle  king,  ripw  is  accomplished  the  will  of 
God,  who  desired  me  to  rajse  the  siege  of  Orleans  and  to 
lead  you  to  this  city  of  Rheims  for  your  consecration, 
showing  that  you  are  the  true  king,  and  the  man  to  whom 
the  kingdom  of  France  belongs."  4 

Whether  Joan  said  precisely  this  or  not  cannot  be 
known,  but  something  of  the  kind  she  undoubtedly 
thought,  and  probably  said,  being  usually  outspoken. 
From  such  a  speech  as  this,  from  the  natural  tendency  of 
popular  opinion  after  she  had  been  taken  and  killed,  per- 
haps from  some  later  saying  of  nets  in  a  time  of  defeat 
and  discouragement,  grew  the  legend  that  she  believed  her 
mission  to  have  ended  at  Rheims.5  According  to  this 

1  The  homage  was   rendered  May  5,  during  the  fighting  before 
Orleans,   of  which   the  news  had  not  yet  reached    Lorraine.     On 
August  3  Rend  made  a  formal  disavowal.     Lecoy,  Rene,  ii.  217. 

2  P.  iv.  77,  J.  Chartier;  185,  Journ.  -Siege;  380,  Monstrelet.     He 
was  one  of  three  knights  made  by  Charles  in  the  church.      P.  iv.  381. 

3  P.  v.  129. 

4  P.  iv.  185,  Journ.  Siege. 

6  Compare  the  account  of  her  answer  to  the  archbishop,  as  given 
by  the  Bastard,  who  was  an  eye-witness,  with  that  given  in  the  Journ. 
Siege.  P.  iii.  14;  iv.  188.  The  latter  account,  while  correcting  the 
Bastard's  blunder  about  Joan's  sister,  makes  Joan  say  that  her 
mission  ended  at  Rheims,  a  statement  of  which  the  Bastard  knew 
nothing. 


MONTEPILLOY.  159 

legend,  she  asked  Charles's  leave  to  go  back  to  Dom- 
remy,  and  remained  with  him  only  against  her  better 
judgment  and  against  the  command  of  her  voices.  This 
legend  is  quite  unhistorical.  After  the  consecration, 
she  was  as  eager  as  ever  she  had  been  to  press  forward 
against  the  English  and  to  drive  them  from  France. 
Her  letters,  one  written  that  very  day,  another  written 
two  or  three  weeks  later,  show  this  plainly,  and  are  full 
of  her  old  confidence  in  God's  help  and  in  herself  as  his 
messenger.  Moreover,  it  would  have  been  utterly  impos- 
sible for  Joan  to  disobey  her  voices  in  the  manner  sup- 
posed. Hers  was  not  a  vision  which  appeared  only  to 
bid  her  do  this  or  that,  and  then  left  her  when  she  had 
set  out  to  do  as  she  was  bid.  She  communed  with  her 
voices  daily,  and  in  all  matters  of  doubt  she  appealed  to 
them.  Twice  only,1  so  far  as  is  known,  did  she  ever  dis- 
obey them,  and,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  the  reasons  and 
the  manner  of  that  disobedience  make  plain  how  com- 
pletely in  all  other  matters  she  followed  their  commands. 
There  is,  indeed,  an  historical  basis  for  the  legend  just 
mentioned.  Though  Joan  appealed  to  her  voices  in  time 
of  doubt,  she  did  not  always  get  from  them  concrete  ad- 
vice, but  often  only  comfort  and  encouragement.  They 
had  bidden  her  go  to  Vaucouleurs  and  to  Chinon,  they 
had  bidden  her  raise  the  siege  of  Orleans  and  conduct 
Charles  to  Eheims.  Thereafter  their  commands  became 
more  general;  she  was  called  to  drive  the  English  from 
France,  but  seldom,  if  ever,  was  any  city  marked  for 
her  attack,  or  any  expedition  particularly  directed.  The 
failure  of  her  later  attempts  naturally  made  the  people 
about  her  notice  the  difference  between  the  earlier  and 
the  later  commands  which  she  professed  to  receive.  This 
difference  she  may  have  noticed  herself,  but  the  change 
in  the  temper  of  her  mind  was  chiefly  caused  by  her  dis- 

1  In  leaping  from  the  tower  at  Beaurevoir,  and  in  recanting  at  St. 
Ouen. 


160  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

covery  that  the  will  of  God,  though  clearly  expressed, 
may  sometimes  be  set  at  naught  by  the  will  of  man.  Her 
companions,  on  the  other  hand,  naturally  unwilling  to 
apply  this  truth,  began  to  say  that  though  she  often  joked 
about  one  exploit  or  another,  she  never  spoke  seriously 
of  any  particular  mission  after  the  relief  of  Orleans  and 
the  expedition  to  Rheims.1  This  change  of  feeling,  how- 
ever, came  about  long  afterwards.  In  Rheims  she  was  at 
the  very  height  of  her  reputation,  and,  if  that  were  pos- 
sible, surer  than  ever  that  the  English  would  be  driven 
from  France.2 

There  seemed  good  reason  for  her  belief.  Not  only 
did  great  noblemen  like  Rene  of  Bar,  and  plundering 
swash-bucklers  like  Robert  of  Commercy,  hasten  to  join 
Charles,  but  the  cities  throughout  northern  France  were 
eager  to  acknowledge  him.  Four  days  after  his  conse- 
cration, messengers  brought  to  him  the  keys  of  Laon,  a 
city  of  great  strength  and  importance,  close  to  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  duke  of  Burgundy ;  and  many  other  places 
were  ready  to  follow  the  example  thus  set  them.  To  the 
French  no  exploit  seemed  too  difficult;  men  talked  of 
marching  to  the  English  Channel  and  to  Calais,  as  if  it 
were  a  day's  excursion.3 

To  success  like  this  the  duke  of  Burgundy  seemed  the 
only  obstacle,  and  what  the  duke  of  Burgundy  would  do, 
no  man  could  tell.  While  Charles  was  before  Troyes, 
he  had  entered  Paris.  Standing  in  a  great  assembly  of 
the  people,  with  the  regent  Bedford  at  his  side,  he  caused 
to  be- rehearsed  the  story  of  his  father's  murder,  of  which 

1  See  P.  iii.  16,  Bastard. 

2  See  Rev.  Hist.,  t.  xix.  66. 

3  See  P.  iv.  20,  Cagny;  187,  Journ.  Siege;  381,  391,  Monstrelet; 
letter  of  J.  de  Bourbon  already  cited.  The  coronation  was  reported  at 
Paris  on  July  19.   P.  iv.  453.    See,  also,  P.  v.  352,  for  a  letter  written 
about  this  time  by  the  town  clerk  of  Metz,  and  Beaucourt,  ii.  234,  n., 
citing  Jean  Juve"nal  and  the  Chronique  de  Tournai. 


MONTEPILLOY.  161 

he  made  another  solemn  complaint,  afterwards  compelling 
all  the  citizens  to  swear  fealty  to  himself  and  to  Bed- 
ford. As  the  French  entered  Kheims,  he  left  Paris  and 
sent  an  embassy  to  Charles  almost  before  the  oaths  of  his 
Parisian  adherents  had  been  registered.  This  embassy 
had  not  returned  when,  in  consequence  of  another  inter- 
view with  the  English,  and  urged  by  his  sister,  Bedford's 
wife,  he  sent  a  considerable  force  to  Bedford's  assistance, 
at  the  same  time  making  a  truce  with  Charles.  Many  of 
his  councilors,  perhaps  most  of  them,  really  wished  for 
peace,  but  there  was  an  active  minority  opposed  to  it, 
and  the  duke  himself  seems  to  have  played  a  part  as 
weak  and  contemptible  as  that  of  his  royal  cousin.  We 
shall  see  how  the  skillful  diplomacy  of  Bedford  made 
Philip's  vacillation  constantly  serve  the  English  purpose, 
and  how  the  regent  triumphed  over  the  feeble  councilors 
of  Charles  at  every  turn.1 

Joan's  common  sense  showed  her  the  need  of  Philip's 
assistance,  and  her  patriotism  made  her  wish  that  every 
Frenchman  should  help  in  saving  France.  On  the  very 
day  of  the  coronation  she  wrote  this  letter :  — 

"High  and  mighty  prince,  duke  of  Burgundy,  I,  Joan 
the  Maid,  in  the  name  of  the  King  of  Heaven,  my  right- 
ful and  sovereign  Lord,  bid  you  and  the  king  of  France 
make  a  good,  firm  peace,  which  shall  endure.  Do  each 
of  you  pardon  the  other,  heartily  and  wholly,  as  loyal 
Christians  should,  and,  if  you  like  to  fight,  go  against  the 
Saracens.  Prince  of  Burgundy,  I  pray  and  beseech  and 
beg  you  as  humbly  as  I  may,  that  you  war  no  more  on 
the  holy  kingdom  of  France,  but  at  once  cause  your  peo- 
ple who  are  in  any  places  and  fortresses  of  this  holy  king- 
dom to  withdraw ;  and  as  for  the  gentle  king  of  France, 

1  Philip  came  to  Paris  April  4,  and  left  it  April  8  ;  returned 
July  10,  and  went  away  again  July  16.  See  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429. 
See,  also,  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chaps.  Ixii.,  Ixvii.,  Ixix.  ;  Stevenson, 
Wars  Eng.,  ii.  104. 


162  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

he  is  ready  to  make  peace  with  you  if  you  are  willing, 
saving  his  honor;  and  I  bid  you  know,  in  the  name  of 
the  King  of  Heaven,  my  rightful  and  sovereign  Lord,  for 
your  well-being  and  your  honor  and  on  your  life,  that 
you  will  never  gain  a  battle  against  loyal  Frenchmen; 
and  that  all  who  war  in  the  holy  kingdom  of  France  war 
against  King  Jesus,  King  of  Heaven  and  all  the  earth, 
my  rightful  and  sovereign  Lord.  With  folded  hands  I 
pray  and  beg  you  to  fight  no  battle  and  wage  no  war 
against  us,  neither  you,  your  soldiers,  nor  your  people, 
for  whatever  number  of  soldiers  you  bring  against  us, 
know  of  a  surety  that  they  shall  gain  nothing,  but  it  will 
be  a  great  pity  to  see  the  great  battle  and  the  blood 
which  will  flow  from  those  who  come  there  against  us. 
Three  weeks  ago  I  wrote  and  sent  you  good  letters  by  a 
herald,  bidding  you  to  the  king's  consecration,  which 
takes  place  to-day,  Sunday,  the  seventeenth  of  this  pres- 
ent month  of  July,  in  the  city  of  Rheims,  but  I  have  had 
no  answer,  and  have  heard  no  news  of  the  herald.  To 
God  I  commend  you,  and  may  He  keep  you,  if  it  please 
Him,  and  I  pray  God  to-bring  about  a  good  peace."1 

No  letter  is  more  characteristic  of  Joan  than  this. 
Her  belief  in  her  mission,  her  wish  to  persuade  every  one 
of  it  by  reason  rather  than  by  arms,  her  br^ad  patriotism 
and  want  of  party  feeling,  her  perfect  assurance  of  suc- 
cess, all  clearly  appear.  So  far  as  is  known,  Philip  made 
no  answer,  but  the  story  went  that  he  was  very  desirous 
of  seeing  Joan,  and  this  was  probably  true.2 

The  consecration  was  hardly  over  when  his  ambassa- 
dors reached  Rheims.  Just  what  terms  they  proposed  is 
uncertain ;  it  is  probable  that  they  suggested  im- 
AUugrust2,  mediate  but  partial  and  temporary  truces,  writh  a 
general  peace  in  the  indefinite  future,  and  that 
they  tried  to  delay  and  to  check  the  royal  advance.  For 
the  moment  the  enthusiasm  was  too  great  for  them.  On 

1  P.  v.  126.  2  See  letter  of  J.  de  Bourbon,  already  cited. 


MONTEPILLOY.  163 

Thursday,  July  21,  Charles  rode  to  the  abbey  of  St. 
Marcoul,  where,  according  to  custom,  he  touched  for  the 
King's  Evil.1  On  Friday  he  went  on  to  Vailly,  and 
having  received  the  keys  of  Soissons,  he  entered  that  city 
on  Saturday,  July  23.  Everywhere  he  was  welcomed 
with  great  joy.2 

He  was  now  only  about  sixty  miles  from  Paris,  which 
should  have  been  the  object  of  his  operations.  Bedford 
had  left  the  city  for  a  few  days;  it  had  but  a  small  garri- 
son, and  many  of  its  citizens  sympathized  with  Charles. 
A  vigorous  advance  might  have  ended  the  war,  but  the 
royal  council  was  hopelessly  divided  and  the  ambassadors 
of  Burgundy  were  active.  Charles  halted  at  Soissons  four 
or  five  days,  and  received  the  submission  of  many  neigh- 
boring towns,  but  he  did  nothing  else.  When  at  length, 
about  July  28,  the  army  set  out  again  on  its  march,  it 
did  not  take  the  direct  road  to  Paris,  but  went  almost 
due  south  to  Chateau  Thierry,3  keeping  about  the  same 
distance  from  the  capital.  After  two  days  spent  at  Cha- 
teau Thierry,  it  proceeded  to  Provins,  which  was  reached 
on  August  2.  This  town  is  about  sixty  miles  south  of 
Soissons,  and  about  fifty  miles  southeast  of  Paris.  In 
ten  days  Charles  had  made  but  three  marches  and  was 
only  ten  miles  nearer  his  objective.  Practically  nothing 
had  been  accomplished.4 

It  is  impossible  to  discover  the  precise  cause  of  each  of 

1  See  Vallet  de  Viriville,  Charles  VII.,  ii.  136,  n.     Joan  is  said 
to  have  ridden  before  the  king  in  a  full  suit  of  plain  armor,  with 
banner  displayed.     When  she  was  without  her  armor,  she  had  the 
state  and  dress  of  a  knight,  —  laced    shoes,   trunks,   a  short   coat, 
and  small  hat.     She  wore  rich  suits  of  cloth  of  gold  and  silk,  well 
furred. 

2  P.  iv.  20  Cagny;  78,  J.  Chartier. 

3  The  garrison  of  Chateau  Thierry  was  allowed  to  join  Bedford  in 
Paris.     P.  iv.  381,  Monstrelet. 

4  See  Journ.  Bourg.,  Ann.  1429;  P.  iv.  453,  Fauquemberque ;  20, 21, 
Cagny;  78,  J.  Chartier. 


164  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

these  extraordinary  manoeuvres,  but  what  was  the  general 
condition  of  affairs  is  quite  evident.  A  truce  had  been 
made  with  Burgundy,  the  exact  terms  of  which  are  un- 
known, but  which  was  to  last  for  a  fortnight.1  It  may 
have  covered  some  of  the  places  between  Soissons  and 
Paris,  one  of  which  at  this  time  was  intrusted  by  Bed- 
ford to  a  devoted  follower  of  Philip.2  Again,  many  of 
Charles's  counselors  were  tired  of  the  expedition  and 
anxious  to  get  back  to  a  place  of  safety ;  some  of  these 
may  have  believed  that  the  best  policy  was  to  humor 
Philip,  some  may  have  been  bought,  some  may  have  been 
moved  by  personal  dislike  of  Joan  or  of  Alen9on.  With 
this  division  of  opinion,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  march 
of  the  royal  army  was  slow  and  erratic. 

In  her  simplicity,  Joan  herself  but  half  understood 
how  things  were  going.  Perhaps  she  was  deceived  about 
the  position  of  Paris,  as  she  had  been  deceived  about  that 
of  Orleans  three  months  before.  Apparently  she  was 
told  that  the  truce  with  Burgundy  would  bring  to  pass  the 
surrender  of  Paris  within  a  fortnight,  though  she  hardly 
believed  the  story.  "  With  truces  so  made  I  am  not  con- 
tent," she  wrote  to  the  men  of  Rheims,  "and  I  do  not 
know  if  I  will  keep  them ;  if  I  do,  it  will  be  only  to  save 
the  king's  honor."3  She  did  not  realize  how  little  the 
council  regarded  either  her  wishes  or  the  good  of  France. 

At  length,  by  the  utmost  effort,  the  duke  of  Bedford 
had  gathered  an  army.  On  July  25  he  entered  Paris 
with  a  force  brought  from  England  by  his  uncle,  the 
cardinal  of  Winchester,  and  raised,  it  was  said,  to  fight 
the  Hussite  heretics  of  Bohemia.4  After  passing  a  few 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  404. 

2  Meaux  was  given  to  the  Bastard  of  St.  Pol.    Monstrelet,  Bk.  II. 
ch.  Ixii. 

8  P.  v.  140. 

4  P.  iv.  81,  J.  Chartier;  463,  Fauquemberque ;  Beaurepaire,  Admin, 
de  Normandie,  61.  According  to  a  Burgundian  chronicler,  some 


MONTEPILLOT.  165 

days  in  the  capital,  and  thus  assuring  himself  of  the 
fidelity  of  its  magistrates,  he  marched  against  Charles. 
He  did  not  wish  especially  for  battle,  but  felt  the  need 
of  showing  a  bold  front  to  his  enemies,  lest  his  French 
subjects  should  believe  he  had  lost  heart  altogether.1 

Meantime,  at  Provins,  there  was  quarreling  and  con- 
fusion in  the  royal  council.  After  a  short  stay  ^ug.  2-7, 
in  the  place,  the  party  of  peace  got  the  upper  1429* 
hand,  and  orders  were  issued  to  cross  the  Seine  at  Bray 
and  retreat  to  the  Loire.  Some  arrangement  had  been 
reached  for  a  conference  with  Philip.  Bedford  was  ad- 
vancing, and  it  was  thought  best  to  trust  to  diplomacy 
rather  than  to  risk  a  battle.  During  the  night,  however, 
an  Anglo-Burgundian  force  seized  Bray  and  held  it  so 
strongly  that  a  battle  was  needed  to  force  the  passage  of 
the  Seine.  Thereupon  AlenQon,  Laval,  and  the  party 
of  war  took  heart,  and  on  that  very  day  the  army  turned 
again  and  marched  on  Paris.2 

Though  the  disgraceful  cowardice  and  folly  of  La  Tre- 
moille  and  his  followers  were  thus  defeated  by  the  super- 
serviceable  zeal  of  some  Anglo-Burgundian  captain,  all 
these  marchings  and  counter-marchings  and  the  hopeless 
indecision  of  the  royal  council  were  ruining  the  spirit  of 
the  army.  The  country  people  were  still  wild  with  de- 
light at  the  coming  of  the  king,  and  crowded  to  meet  him 
as  he  passed  by.  Joan  was  riding  between  the  Bastard 
and  the  archbishop  of  Rheims.  "What  good  people  they 
are,"  she  said.  "I  never  saw  any  other  people  who  re- 
joiced so  much  over  the  coming  of  so  noble  a  king.  I 

of  Bedford's  English  soldiers  carried  a  banner  on  which  were  blazoned 
a  distaff  and  spindle,  with  hanks  of  yarn,  and  the  motto,  "  Come  on, 
my  pretty  girl."  Livre  des  Trahisons,  198. 

1  According  to  one  account,  Bedford  left  Paris  August  3.     Rev. 
Hist.,  t.  xix.  75. 

2  P.  iv.  79,  J.  Chartier;  188,  Journ.  Siege.     See  Gilles  de  Roye,  in 
Chron.  Belg.  ined.,  i.  207;  Jadart,  /.  a  Reims,  118;  Stevenson,  Wars 
Eng.,  ii.  101 ;  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429. 


166  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

would  that  when  I  die  I  were  so  happy  as  to  be  buried  in 
this  place."  "Joan,  when  do  you  expect  to  die?  "  asked 
the  archbishop,  who  had  no  great  belief  in  her  mission, 
but  was  curious  to  hear  what  she  would  say.  "  When  it 
shall  please  God,"  she  answered,  "for  I  know  no  more 
of  the  time  and  the  place  than  you  do.  Would  that  it 
pleased  God  my  creator  to  let  me  depart  at  this  time  and 
lay  down  my  arms,  and  go  to  serve  my  father  and  mother 
in  keeping  their  sheep  with  my  brothers,  for  they  would 
be  very  glad  to  see  me." 1  Even  on  Joan  herself  the  in- 
decision and  the  delay  was  beginning  to  tell,  though  she 
kept  as  brave  a  face  as  she  could. 

The  wanderings  of  Charles  seem  to  have  puzzled  Bed- 
ford, who  on  August  7  found  himself  at  Montereau, 
rather  farther  from  Paris  than  was  the  king.  On  that 
day  he  published  a  manifesto  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to 
Charles.  It  was  constructed  with  some  skill:  Charles 
was  charged  with  receiving  the  help  of  a  loose  and  disor- 
derly woman  wearing  men's  clothes,  and  of  an  apostate 
and  seditious  friar,  "both,  according  to  Holy  Scripture, 
things  abominable  to  God."  The  letter  begged  the  king 
to  have  pity  on  the  poor  people,  and  suggested  a  meeting 
at  some  place  near  by,  to  which  Charles  might  come, 
with  the  disorderly  woman  and  the  apostate  friar  afore- 
said, and  all  the  perjured  rascals  of  his  train.  There 
Bedford  would  discuss  terms  of  peace,  an  unfeigned 
peace,  not  like  that  which  Charles  once  made  at  this  very 
Montereau,  just  before  he  foully  murdered  the  duke  of 
Burgundy.  The  letter  closed  by  challenging  Charles  to 
single  combat,  and  with  an  appeal  to  the  Almighty.2 
Having  dispatched  this  missive,  Bedford  hastened  to 
interpose  himself  between  the  French  army  and  Paris, 
taking  care  that  the  city's  gates  should  be  closed  and 
guarded.3 

1  P.  iii.  14,  Bastard.  2  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixv. 

8  See  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429;  P.  iv.  21,  Caguy;  46,  Berri. 


MONTEPILLOY.  167 

On  August  11  Bedford's  letter  was  received  by  Charles 
at  Crepy-en-Valois,  about  thirty-five  miles  north-  ^ug  n_ 
east  of  Paris.1  An  embassy,  made  up  from  the  14»1429- 
party  of  peace,  had  just  been  sent  to  Philip  at  Arras, 
and  so  the  party  of  action  was  in  control  of  the  expedi- 
tion. On  August  12  and  13  the  army  marched  slowly  on 
Paris,  coming  within  twenty  miles  of  the  capital.  Bed- 
ford was  nearer  still,  and  was  manoeuvring  to  get  into  a 
strong  position,  not  intending  to  attack  the  French.  On 
Sunday,  August  14,  the  two  armies  came  face  to  face  at 
Montepilloy,  not  far  from  Senlis.  It  was  near  evening, 
and  after  a  skirmish  they  both  encamped  for  the  night. 
The  next  morning  the  French  reconnoitred  Bedford's 
position,  and  found  it  very  strong.  A  lake  and  ^ug  ^ 
a  stream  were  in  his  rear,  which  might  have  1429- 
proved  his  ruin  had  he  been  defeated,  but  which  pre- 
vented an  attack  from  that  direction.  During  the  night 
he  had  carefully  covered  his  flanks  and  his  front  with 
earthworks  and  with  stout  stakes,  which  the  English 
archers  used  to  carry,  and  which  were  thrust  deep  into 
the  ground  to  break  the  charge  of  cavalry.  His  main 
body  was  English,  his  right  wing  composed  of  Picards 
sent  to  him  by  Philip  of  Burgundy.  Above  his  host 
floated  the  banners  of  England  and  France. 

The  French  army  was  formed  in  four  divisions,  the 
advance-guard,  commanded  by  Alenc,  on ;  the  centre,  com- 
manded by  Rene  of  Bar ;  the  rear,  with  which  were  La 
Tremoille  and  Charles  himself ;  and  a  large  body  of  skir- 
mishers under  Joan,  the  Bastard,  and  La  Hire.  Although 
the  French  were  more  numerous  than  the  English,  Bed- 
ford's position  was  so  strongly  covered  that  a  direct  at- 
tack seemed  too  dangerous,  and  the  French  attempted  to 
draw  the  English  out  into  the  open  country.  Their  army 
advanced  until  it  was  but  two  bowshots  from  Bedford's 
front,  and  then  he  was  solemnly  defied.  He  had  no 
1  P.  iv.  46,  Bern. 


168  JOAN  OF  ABC. 

intention  of  leaving  his  position,  however,  and  stood 
firm.  Both  on  foot  and  on  horseback,  the  French 
knights  came  right  up  to  the  English  works,  and  so 
taunted  and  harassed  their  defenders  that  some  of  these 
rushed  out.  Thereupon  the  French  fell  back,  and  being 
pursued,  returned  to  the  attack  in  such  force  that  more 
of  the  English  were  drawn  out  to  the  rescue  of  their  out- 
numbered countrymen.  Through  the  long,  hot,  and  dusty 
day  these  skirmishes  went  on  with  varying  fortune  and 
considerable  loss  to  both  sides,  for  men's  passions  were 
roused,  and  no  quarter  was  given.  The  English  disci- 
pline was  good  enough  to  prevent  a  general  sortie,  and 
the  French  accomplished  nothing. 

In  the  afternoon  they  brought  up  two  field-pieces, 
weapons  hardly  yet  in  common  use,  and  placed  them  so 
as  to  enfilade  the  English  line.  These  caused  some  loss 
to  the  English,  and  there  was  considerable  danger  that 
their  army  would  be  thrown  into  disorder,  but  Bedford's 
word  and  example  held  his  troops  steady,  until  a  party 
of  his  Picard  horsemen  fell  suddenly  upon  the  feebly 
supported  battery  and  captured  it.  Later  still,  the 
French  skirmishers  retreated  upon  the  main  body,  and 
Bedford  was  notified  that  he  might  come  out  and  set  his 
army  in  battle  order  without  being  disturbed,  an  invita- 
tion which  he  declined.  As  it  grew  dusk,  the  French 
retired  to  their  quarters,  and  the  king,  who  seemed  easily 
satisfied  in  the  matter  of  fighting,  went  to  Crepy.1 

Early  Tuesday  morning  the  French  retreated  farther, 
Aug.  16-  hoping  that  Bedford  would  follow  them.  Some 
28, 1429.  Of  j^s  captains  were  for  doing  so,  but  the  regent 
had  accomplished  his  object.  As  soon  as  he  was  clear 
of  the  French  he  retreated  to  Senlis,  and  from  there  to 
Paris,  having  faced  without  disaster  a  superior  French 

1  See  P.  iv.  21,  Cagny;  81,  J.  Chartier;  193,  Journ.  Siege;  387, 
Monstrelet;  434,  Wavrin;  Cochon,  Ckron.  Normande,  301;  Livre  des 
Trahisons,  198;  Luce,  341. 


MONTEPILLOY.  169 

force,  having  encouraged  his  own  troops,  and  shaken  the 
popular  faith  in  Joan.  About  noon  the  French  captains 
learned  what  he  had  done.  It  is  quite  plain  that  they 
should  have  followed  him  up  with  vigor,  and  that  his 
retreating  army,  shut  in  between  Paris  and  a  superior 
force  of  the  enemy,  would  have  been  in  peril;  but  the 
spirit  which  had  triumphed  at  Patay  was  pretty  much 
gone.  A  detachment  was  sent  to  occupy  Senlis,  the  rest 
of  the  army  joined  Charles  at  Crepy,  and  on  Thursday, 
August  18,  proceeded  to  Compiegne,  fifty  miles  from 
Paris.  Its  inhabitants  had  sent  its  keys  to  the  king,  and 
the  place  was  nearer  Arras,  where  Philip  of  Burgundy 
held  his  court.1 

Several  days  were  spent  in  Compiegne,  greatly  to  the 
distress  of  Joan,  who  knew  the  importance  of  rapid 
movements,  an<}  saw  the  troops  becoming  further  per- 
plexed and  dispirited.  On  August  23,  with  Alencon 
and  a  considerable  force,  she  left  Compiegne  for  Senlis.2 
On  the  25th  they  took  St.  Denis,  and  thus  established 
themselves  at  the  very  gates  of  Paris,3  but  they  could 
not  persuade  the  king  to  follow  them,  and  they  left  the 
party  of  peace  in  full  control  of  the  council.  Shortly 
after  his  return  from  Montepilloy,  Bedford  had  gone 
back  with  most  of  his  soldiers  to  Normandy,  where  his 
power  was  threatened  by  revolt  within  and  by  attack 
from  without.4  His  agents  in  Paris  were  active  in 
strengthening  the  fortifications,  and  in  taking  fresh  oaths 
of  the  people,  but  it  is  probable  that  his  chief  reliance 
was  on  the  duke  of  Burgundy  and  the  duke's  negotia- 
tions. 

1  P.  iv.  23,  Cagny. 

2  For  the  terms  of  the  capitulation  of  Senlis,  see  Bernier,  Monu- 
mens  inedits  de  I'hist.  de  France,  18. 

8  P.  iv.  24,  Cagny;  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429;  Cochon,  Chron. 
Normande,  302. 

4  See  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  111. 


170  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

This  reliance  was  not  in  vain.  At  Arras  there  had 
been  much  talk  among  Charles's  ambassadors,  the  duke 
of  Burgundy  and  his  council,  and  the  ambassadors  of  the 
duke  of  Savoy,  who  was  honestly  trying  to  play  the  peace- 
maker. Not  much  was  accomplished,  but  Philip  agreed 
to  send  envoys  to  Charles  at  Conipiegne,  in  the  mean  tune 
accepting  from  Bedford  the  office  of  governor  of  Paris.1 
The  negotiations  were  resumed  at  Conipiegne,  accord- 
ingly, just  as  Joan  left  the  place,  and  after  some  dicker- 
ing the  party  of  peace  triumphed  decisively  by  securing 
a  general  truce,  which  was  signed  on  August  28.  It 
covered  all  the  country  north  of  the  Seine  from  Nogent, 
sixty  miles  above  Paris,  to  the  sea,  except  the  cities  and 
fortresses  on  the  river  at  which  it  could  be  crossed. 
Why  the  exception  was  made  does  not  clearly  appear; 
perhaps  because  Charles,  in  returning  to  the  Loire,  must 
cross  the  Seine  at  some  one  of  these  places;  perhaps 
because  the  party  of  peace  did  not  dare  openly  to  give  up 
all  hope  of  taking  Paris,  which  city  the  treaty  expressly 
permitted  Philip  to  relieve.  Between  the  duke  and 
Charles  the  truce  was  to  begin  at  once,  and  was  to  last 
until  Christmas.  The  English,  if  they  wished,  might 
have  the  benefit  of  it  at  any  time.  During  its  continu- 
ance Charles  might  not  receive  the  submission  of  a  city, 
however  much  it  should  wish  to  acknowledge  him.  The 
delusive  hope  of  a  peace  with  Burgundy  seems  to  have 
taken  possession  of  some  of  the  king's  advisers  who  were 
not  mere  creatures  of  La  Tremoille,  and  it  is  probable 
that  a  real  majority  of  the  council  favored  the  truce, 
though  Alenc.on  and  others  were  bitterly  opposed  to  it.2 

1  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  408,  413;  Rev.  Historique,  t.  xix.  79. 

2  See  Plancher,  Hist.  Bourgogne,    iv.,  Ixxviii.  et  seq. ;  Quicherat, 
Nouveaux  documents  sur  Charles  VII.  et  J. :  Beaucourt,  ii.  410,  n. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE   ATTACK   ON  PARIS. 

THE  truce  should  have  ended  the  campaign,  for  by  it 
Charles  had  effectually  prevented  himself  from   Aug.  28, 
carrying   on   a   successful   war.     An    attacking   1429- 
army  can  do  little  when  it  allows  its  enemies  to  choose  its 
point  of  attack  and  to  limit  its  field  of  operations.     Be- 
fore deciding,  however,  that  the  truce  was  certainly  dis- 
advantageous to  the  French,  we  must  consider  what  would 
have  been  their  chance  of  success  if  they  had  pushed  the 
war  with  vigor,  and  what  chance  of  a  lasting  peace  with 
Philip  they  gained  by  granting  him  an  armistice. 

It  is  almost  impossible  to  exaggerate  the  moral  effect 
of  Joan's  campaigns  about  Orleans  and  of  her  march  to 
Rheims.  All  Europe  was  filled  with  wonder.  Foreign 
princes  were  eager  to  have  particular  news  of  her.  Col- 
lects praying  for  her  were  used  in  remote  parts  of  France. 
All  the  way  from  Spain  came  letters  asking  her  to  decide 
which  of  the  three  claimants  to  the  papacy  had  the  right- 
ful title.1  After  the  fall  of  Troyes,  all  places  except 
Paris  had  been  eager  to  recognize  Charles.  Even  after 
his  erratic  march  had  been  checked  at  Monte'pilloy,  while 
the  king  was  at  Compiegne,  town  after  town  had  acknow- 
ledged him  and  some  great  nobles  had  joined  him;  Beau- 
vais  had  driven  out  Cauchon,  its  bishop  count,  a  violent 
Anglo -Burgundian,2  and  Philip  was  quite  justified  in 
seeking  a  truce  and  in  trying  at  all  hazards  to  prevent 
such  desertions  for  the  future.  "In  truth,"  says  a  Bur- 

1  See  P.  v.  98,  104,  114,  131,  270,  347,  353. 

2  P.  iv.  85,  J.  Chartier;  190,  Journ.  Siege. 


172  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

gundian  chronicler,  "if  he  [Charles]  had  coine  with  all 
his  force  to  St.  Quentin,  Corbie,  Amiens,  Abbeville,  and 
many  other  strong  towns  and  strong  castles,  the  larger 
part  of  the  people  were  ready  to  receive  him  as  their  lord, 
and  desired  nothing  in  the  world  but  to  obey  him  and  to 
open  their  gates."1  The  entreaties  made  to  him  by  the 
men  of  Rheims,  when  they  heard  that  he  thought  of  re- 
turning to  the  Loire,  were  piteous.  Let  him  be  steadfast 
with  diligence,  said  they,  for  his  sake  and  his  kingdom's; 
let  him  defend  them  from  Burgundy  and  his  followers, 
who  are  very  strong  and  already  boast  what  they  will  do.2 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  also,  that  Bedford's  hold 
on  Normandy  was  much  disturbed.  Several  French  cap- 
tains carried  on  there  a  guerrilla  warfare,  having  the 
sympathy  of  some  of  the  people.  Two  or  three  places 
had  been  actually  taken,  and  plots  were  made  to  deliver 
Rouen.3  Had  Charles  availed  himself  of  the  influence 
of  Joan,  the  splendid  confidence  of  his  own  soldiers,  and 
the  loyalty  of  the  country  people,  at  the  same  time  offer- 
ing to  Philip  reasonable  terms  of  immediate  peace,  it  is 
likely  that  the  English  power  in  northern  France  would 
have  disappeared  in  1429  as  quickly  as  it  did  twenty 
years  later. 

If  the  truce  and  the  abandonment  of  his  campaign  had 
assured  to  Charles  a  reasonable  peace  with  the  duke  of 
Burgundy,  then,  in  spite  of  all  drawbacks,  much  good 
would  have  been  accomplished;  but  peace  was  highly 
improbable.  Several  of  Philip's  councilors  wished  a 
peace  of  some  sort  sincerely  enough,  though  the  terms 
they  asked  would  have  dismembered  the  French  mon- 
archy, but  Bedford's  supporters  opposed  any  peace  what- 
soever, and  on  the  whole  their  influence  prevailed.  At 

1  P.  iv.  391,  Monstrelet.     See  Rev.  Hist.  t.  xix.  74. 

2  Jadart,  J.  a  Reims,  118. 

8  Chron.  PMC.,  ed.  Vallet  de  Viriville,  339;  Cochon,  Chron.  Nw- 
mande,  302;  Che'ruel,  Hist,  de  Rouen,  84. 


THE   ATTACK   ON   PARIS.  173 

about  this  time  there  was  laid  before  Philip's  council  a 
memorandum  urging  that  the  English  alliance  should  be 
maintained  in  order  to  escape  from  the  wickedness  and 
malice  of  the  French.  The  memorandum  suggested  that 
the  duke  of  Brittany  should  be  bought  by  the  county  of 
Poitou,  the  constable  by  La  Tremoille's  property  and 
other  estates,  so  that  the  Dauphin  (as  he  was  styled) 
might  be  driven  into  Languedoc.  It  is  not  known  if 
this  memorandum  was  approved  by  the  council,  but  the 
councilor  who  prepared  it  was  Philip's  trusted  agent,  and 
was  soon  sent  to  represent  his  master  at  the  coronation  of 
Henry  VI.  in  England.1  There  is  a  satisfaction  in  know- 
ing that  it  was  proposed  to  betray  the  favorite  to  the 
constable.  As  has  been  observed,  La  Tremoille's  posi- 
tion was  very  precarious,  and  he  kept  his  power  only  so 
long  as  everybody  else  was  at  odds. 

When  the  same  councilor,  Lannoy,  was  in  England, 
he  caused  another  memorandum  to  be  prepared  and  pre- 
sented to  the  council  of  Henry  VI.  By  it  the  English 
king  was  urged  to  take  part  in  the  proposed  negotiations 
for  peace,  securing  meanwhile  a  friendly  cardinal  from 
Rome  to  act  as  umpire  in  the  dispute  between  himself 
and  Charles.  The  French  were  very  proud,  so  the 
memorandum  set  forth,  and  the  negotiations  would  cer- 
tainly fail ;  while  they  were  going  on,  the  English  were 
advised  to  gather  a  large  army,  to  give  the  duke  of  Bur- 
gundy an  increase  of  territory,  and  to  buy  at  a  suitable 
price  some  of  the  duke's  councilors,  probably  including 
Lannoy  himself.  It  was  further  suggested  that  the  duke 
of  Brittany  and  the  constable  should  be  induced  to  enter 
the  English  service,  and  that  the  foreign  powers  should 
be  won  over  by  marriage  or  otherwise.  These  papers 
show  plainly  that,  at  this  time,  there  was  not  the  slightest 
chance  of  securing  by  negotiation  and  truce  a  lasting 
peace  with  Burgundy.2 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  415.  -  Beaucourt,  ii.  416. 


174  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

Very  soon  after  the  truce  was  signed,  Charles  went  to 
Senlis,  a  movement  which  brought  him  nearer  Paris,  but 
also  nearer  the  Loire.  Alencon  and  Joan  had 
Sept.  7,  been  for  a  week  at  St.  Denis,  skirmishing  about 
t29'  the  walls  of  Paris,  seeking  the  best  place  for  an 
attack,  and  smuggling  manifestoes  into  the  city  to  arouse 
the  Armagnac  partisans  and  to  discourage  the  friends  of 
the  English.  To  take  the  city  by  assault  would  call  for 
the  efforts  of  the  whole  army,  and  they  earnestly  wished 
for  reinforcements,  and  for  the  presence  of  the  king  to 
encourage  the  troops.1 

As  Charles  did  not  come,  Alencon  went  to  Senlis  on 
September  1,  and  not  improbably  at  that  time  first 
learned  of  the  truce.  Its  terms,  however,  permitted  an 
attack  upon  Paris,  and  if  the  capital  once  were  taken, 
truce  or  no  truce,  the  English  power  would  fall.  Charles 
promised  to  come  to  St.  Denis,  and  Alencon  returned  to 
make  ready  for  him,  but  the  wretched  king  broke  his 
word  and  stayed  at  Senlis.  On  September  5  the  duke 
went  there  a  second  time,  succeeded  in  overbearing  the 
party  of  peace,  and  on  Wednesday,  September  7,  dragged 
Charles  to  St.  Denis.  Joan  and  all  her  companions  were 
much  encouraged,  and  every  one  said,  "She  will  put  the 
king  into  Paris,  if  he  will  let  her."2  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  Charles  had  already  decided  to  retreat. 

On  the  very  evening  of  the  king's  arrival  at  St.  Denis, 
the  duke  of  Alencon,  with  Joan,  young  Guy  of  Laval, 
and  other  captains,  made  a  vigorous  reconnoissance,  rid- 
ing up  to  the  gates  of  the  city ;  they  then  encamped  in 
a  village  called  La  Chapelle,  close  to  Paris.  Thursday, 

1  P.  iv.  25,  Cagny;  47,  Berri;  85,  J.  Chartier;  463,  Journ.  Bourg. 
and  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1429;  P.  iv.  500,  Windecken.     See  Grasso- 
reille,  Chapitre  de  Notre  Dame,  in  Mem.  soc.  hist.  Paris,  t.  ix.  176  et 
seq. 

2  P.  iv.  25,  Cagny  ;  86,  J.  Chartier  ;  199,  Journ.  Siege;  Beaucourt, 
ii.  239,  note  1. 


THE  ATTACK   ON  PAEIS.  175 

September  8,  was  the  birthday  of  our   Lady,  then  and 
now  a  great  festival  in  the  Catholic  Church.     It   gept>  g, 
seems  that  Joan  had  some  scruple  about  attack-   ]  l29- 
ing  Paris  on  a  holy  day,'  though  this  is  not  clear;  but 
the  captains  were  eager  to  advance,  perhaps  fearing  lest 
the  wretched  king  should  be  persuaded  to  desert  them 
before  anything  was  accomplished.    Joan's  voices  did  not 
forbid,  and  so  she  went  forward  with  the  army ;  having 
made  up  her  mind  to  storm  the  city,  though  the  captains 
would  have  been  content  with  a  vigorous  skirmish.1 

At  eight  o'clock  the  army  marched,  leaving  the  king 
safe  at  St.  Denis.  Joan,  together  with  old  Gaucourt 
and  the  marshal  Rais,  advanced  against  the  gate  of  St. 
Honore,  while  Alencon  with  the  reserves  covered  the 
rear  of  the  attacking  party  against  a  possible  sally  of  the 
garrison  from  one  of  the  other  gates  of  the  city.  So 
heavy  was  the  fire  of  the  artillery  placed  on  the  walls 
that  the  duke  was  obliged  to  shelter  himself  behind  a 
hill,  near  the  site  of  the  present  church  of  St.  Roch. 
About  midday  the  assault  began.  The  boulevard,  or 
earthwork,  which  covered  the  gate  of  St.  Honore",  was 
taken  without  much  trouble,  and  Joan  came  to  the  deep 
fosse,  filled  with  water,  which  surrounded  the  city's  walls. 
Besiegers  and  defenders  were  now  within  hailing  dis- 
tance; Joan  summoned  the  Parisians  to  surrender,  and 
they  answered  her  with  shouts  of  defiance,  calling  her  by 
all  the  foul  names  in  the  language.  On  both  sides  the 
firing  was  incessant,  and  many  of  both  parties  were  killed 
and  wounded.  The  peaceable  citizens  of  Paris,  mean- 
while, were  in  wild  terror.  Men  ran  through  the  streets, 
crying  that  all  was  lost,  and  that  the  enemy  was  already 
inside  the  gates.  The  churches,  filled  for  the  festival, 
were  abandoned,  and  every  man  hid  himself  in  his  own 
house.  Within  a  few  years  Paris  had  seen  horrible 

1  P.  i.  57, 146,  147,  J.'s  test.;  iv.  198,  Journ.  Siege  ;  Journ.  Bourg., 
ed.  Tuetey,  244. 


176  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

massacres  both  of  Armagnacs  and  Burgundians,  and  the 
soldiers  of  Charles  had  long  been  in  the  worst  repute.1 

For  all  the  bravery  of  the  French,  the  water  in  the 
fosse  was  so  deep  that  they  could  not  get  at  the  walls. 
Joan  and  Rais,  accordingly,  ordered  it  to  be  filled  by 
throwing  fagots  and  great  blocks  of  wood  into  the  water ; 
wagon-loads  of  these  had  been  brought,  but  the  fosse  was 
so  deep  that  it  could  not  be  crossed.  This  failure  of  the 
French  encouraged  the  garrison  and  it  fired  the  harder, 
shooting  Joan's  standard-bearer  through  the  head,  and 
wounding  Joan  herself  in  the  leg  with  the  bolt  of  an 
arblast.  As  at  the  Tourelles,  she  would  not  allow  a 
retreat,  but  still  urged  that  the  fosse  should  be  filled,  and 
that  the  troops  should  advance  to  the  assault.  It  was 
growing  dark,  the  soldiers  were  tired,  and  Gaucourt,  who 
inclined  to  the  party  of  peace,  was  easily  discouraged. 
He  tried  to  induce  Joan  to  withdraw,  but,  wounded 
though  she  was,  she  refused.  Night  came  on.  Alenc.on 
saw  that  nothing  could  be  done  until  the  next  day, 
and  sent  a  message  to  Joan;  still  she  did  not  budge. 
At  last  he  rode  up  himself,  and  with  Gaucourt' s  help 
dragged  her  from  a  dry  ditch  where  she  kept  her  post. 
She  was  mounted,  and  brought  back  to  La  Chapelle,  but 
as  she  rode  away  from  the  field  she  persisted  in  saying, 
"By  my  staff,  the  place  would  have  been  taken."2 

That  Paris  could  have  been  taken  by  an  army  which 
had  wasted  its  courage  in  delays,  whose  movements  were 
cramped  by  a  partial  truce,  whose  leaders  were  quarrel- 
ing, and  whose  king  had  issued  orders  to  retreat  before 
permitting  an  attack,3  may  well  be  doubted.  On  Thurs- 

1  P.  iv.  26,  Cagny;   86,  J.  Chartier;   456,  Fauquemberque ;   465, 
Journ.  Bourg.  ;  Grassoreille,  176.     On  September  7,  the  day  before 
the  assault,   a  forced  loan  was  exacted  from   the   churchmen  and 
burghers  of  Paris,  in  order  to  resist  the  French  attack.      P.  iv.  456. 

2  P.  iv.  27,  Cagny. 

8  Definite  arrangements  for  the  abandonment  of  the  campaign  were 
made  September  7.  Beaucourt,  ii.  239,  note  1. 


THE   ATTACK   ON    PARIS.  177 

day  night  a  retreat  was  probably  necessary.  But  that 
Paris  could  have  been  taken,  even  as  late  as  Thursday 
morning,  if  the  king  and  his  councilors  had  really  wished 
its  capture,  is  almost  certain.  "If  any  one  in  the  king's 
command  had  been  as  manly  as  Joan,"  said  a  Burgundian 
chronicler,  "  Paris  would  have  been  in  danger  of  capture, 
but  all  the  rest  disagreed  about  the  capture." J 

Early  on   Friday  morning,   in   spite  of  her  wounds, 
Joan  sent  for  Alen9on,  and  begged  him  to  sound  gept-  g_ 
the  trumpets  for  an  advance,   saying  that  she  21' 1429- 
would  never  leave  until  she  had  taken  the  city.     Alen- 
9on  was  ready  to  move,  and  some  of  the  captains  agreed 
with  him,  but  others  differed.     While  they  were  talking, 
Rene   of   Bar   and   the   count   of   Clermont  came  from 
Charles,  and  ordered  Joan  and  Alencon  to  return  at  once 
to  St.  Denis.     La  Tremoille  and  the  party  of  peace  had 
again  got  control  of  the  king.2 

Distressed  as  they  were,  they  had  to  obey,  and  the 
wounded  girl  rode  back  with  the  duke.  Even  at  this 
time  she  would  not  give  up  all  hope.  That  part  of 
Paris  which  lay  south  of  the  Seine  might  have  walls 
less  strong  than  those  near  the  gate  of  St.  Honore. 
Alencon  had  built  a  bridge  across  the  river  near  St. 
Denis,  and  the  two  made  ready  to  pass  it,  hoping,  per- 
haps, to  enter  Paris  by  surprise.  This  movement  was  to 
be  made  on  Saturday,  the  day  after  their  return  to  St. 
Denis,  but  on  Friday  night  some  of  the  council  caused 
the  bridge  to  be  broken  without  the  duke's  knowledge, 
though  he  was  lieutenant-general  of  the  army.3  In  this 
state  of  discipline  there  was  danger  in  staying  within 

1  Gilles  de  Roye,  in  Chron.  Belg.  ined.,  i.  208. 

2  P.  iv.27,  Cagny.     See  47,  Berri;  Cochon,  Chron.  Normande,  306. 
8  P.  iv.  28,  Cagny.     According  to  Beaucourt,  ii.  239,  the  count  of 

Clermont  was  given  the  military  command  in  northern  France,  by 
commission  dated  September  7.  How  far  this  commission  superseded 
Alenc.on's  at  once,  and  how  far  it  was  intended  to  operate  only  after 
the  duke's  departure,  is  not  clear. 


178  JOAN   OP  ARC. 

reach  of  the  enemy.  Bedford  had  again  drawn  near,  and 
the  duke  of  Burgundy  was  making  ready  to  march  on 
Paris.1  There  was  a  little  more  wrangling  in  the  coun- 
cil, and  then,  on  Tuesday,  September  13,  Charles  broke 
camp  at  St.  Denis,  passed  to  the  northward  of  Paris,  and 
began  his  retreat  to  the  Loire.  On  that  day  he  sent  a 
manifesto  to  the  men  of  Rheims,  who  had  received  him 
gladly  less  than  two  months  before,  and  who  had  repeat- 
edly begged  him  not  to  abandon  them.  He  announced 
that  he  was  going  to  make  a  real  treaty  of  peace  with 
Burgundy,  with  whom  he  had  already  made  a  truce.2 
In  the  mean  time,  so  he  said,  he  would  not  eat  up  the 
country  with  his  army,  but  would  return  to  the  Loire 
and  there  gather  a  large  force,  to  be  used  in  case  the 
treaty  of  peace  was  not  made.3  There  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  men  of  Kheims  believed  these  state- 
ments; they  knew  perfectly  that  Charles  was  deliberately 
abandoning  them  to  the  English  and  to  Philip,  and  they 
doubtless  were  thankful  that  he  had  not  offered  their  city 
to  the  duke,  as  he  had  offered  Coinpiegne,  probably  even 
while  he  was  living  in  the  place.4 

Joan  did  not  wish  to  leave  St.  Denis,  where  her  voices 
bade  her  stay,  though  they  did  not  forbid  her  to  follow 
the  army,  after  it  had  made  ready  to  retreat.  Before 
she  left,  she  offered  to  the  saint  her  arms  —  a  full  suit  of 
white  armor  and  a  sword.  She  made  this  votive  offering, 
she  said,  as  men  at  arms  were  wont  to  do  when  they 
recovered  from  their  wounds ;  she  made  it  to  St.  Denis, 
because  that  was  the  war-cry  of  France.  Though  her 

1  Bedford  was  at  Vernon  on  August  27  and  September  1,  meaning 
to  attack.  Charles.     See  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  115,  118 ;  Journ. 
Bourg.,  ann.  1429. 

2  On  September  20  Philip  left  Hesdin  and  traveled  to  Paris  at  the 
head  of  three  or  four  thousand  armed  men.    He  was  received  in  great 
state  at  Senlis  by  Charles's  lieutenants.    Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxiii. 

8  Beaucourt,  iii.  518. 

4  See  P.  v.  174  ;  Sorel,  La  prise  de  J.  devant  Compiegne,  156. 


THE   ATTACK   ON   PARIS.  179 

faith  was  still  strong,  and  her  spirit  unbroken,  yet  her 
final  disappointment  began  with  the  retreat  from  Paris. 
Before  that  time  she  had  met  with  many  obstacles,  but  had 
overcome  them;  thereafter  her  efforts  generally  failed.1 

The  retreat  of  the  army  from  St.  Denis  to  the  Loire 
was  safe  and  speedy.2  On  Wednesday,  September  21, 
Charles  dined  at  Gien,  having  marched  more  than  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  in  eight  days.  "Thus,"  says  a 
chronicler,  "was  broken  the  will  of  the  Maid  and  of  the 
king's  army."3 

1  P.  i.  57,  179,  260,  J.'s  test. 

2  The  Marne  was  crossed  at  Lagny,  the  Seine  at  Bray,  and  the 
Yonne  near  Sens.     P.  iv.  89. 

8  P.  iv.  29,  Cagny.  This  author,  a  follower  of  Alengon,  says  that 
the  retreat  was  disorderly.  Probably,  however,  his  language  merely 
expresses  his  disgust  that  any  retreat  was  made. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

ST.  PIERRE   LE   MOUSTIER   AND   LA   CHARITE. 

ON  the  arrival  of  the  army  at  Gien,  its  leaders  were 
divided  in  counsel  and  quarreling  bitterly.  For  the 
moment,  La  Tremoille's  triumph  was  complete. 
October,  He  had  destroyed  the  enthusiasm  of  the  nobles 
and  the  people,  by  the  truce  with  Burgundy  he 
had  made  war  impossible,  and  he  had  prepared  a  long 
series  of  profitless  embassies  and  negotiations,  under  cover 
of  which  he  could  misrule  France  as  he  pleased.  Alencon 
had  been  outmano3uvred  in  the  royal  council,  and  was  de- 
prived of  his  command  by  the  appointment  of  the  count 
of  Clermont  as  lieutenant-general  in  his  place.1  Urged  by 
Joan,  perhaps,  the  duke  made  a  last  attempt  to  accomplish 
something  with  the  force  at  hand  or  with  a  fresh  levy  of 
troops. 

Normandy  was  the  seat  of  the  English  power  in  the 
north  of  France.  Elsewhere  they  only  held  fortresses  in 
a  hostile  country,  but  in  Normandy  they  had  tried  to 
establish  their  government  with  some  little  measure  of 
success.  If  their  control  of  the  province  was  disturbed, 
they  would  be  taken  in  the  rear,  and  unable  to  act  with 
vigor  against  the  French  elsewhere.  The  enthusiasm 
excited  by  the  march  on  Rheims  was  felt  even  in  Nor- 
mandy, and  its  people,  liking  the  English  rule  none  too 
well,  were  encouraged  to  hope  for  deliverance.  The 
French  partisan  leaders  were  now  close  to  the  Norman 
border,  and  they  were  planning  surprises  of  this  fortress 

1  Valletde  Viriville,  Charles  VII.,  ii.  121,  122;  Beaucourt,  ii.  239; 
iii.  518  ;  P.  iv.  30,  Cagny. 


ST.   PIEKRE   LE  MOUSTIER  AND   LA  CHARITE.       181 

and  that;  the  whole  province  was  uneasy  and  ready 
for  a  rising.  Alenc,on  wished  to  take  advantage  of  this 
state  of  affairs,  and  to  support  with  a  regular  army  the 
guerrilla  warfare  just  about  to  break  out.  He  was  ready 
to  undertake  the  levying  of  troops,  and  he  asked  that 
Joan  might  accompany  him  in  his  proposed  expedition. 
The  request  was  refused;  La  Tremoille  and  his  party 
would  not  let  Alen^on  become  the  leader  of  the  French 
people  in  their  struggle  against  the  English.  The  duke 
went  in  disgust  to  his  estates  and  stayed  there,  never 
again  to  serve  with  Joan.1  The  army,  which  had  left 
Gien  in  high  spirits  three  months  before,  was  at  once  dis- 
banded.2 

For  several  days  the  court  stayed  in  Gien.  At  the 
end  of  September  Charles  journeyed  toward  Selles, 
while  the  queen  set  out  from  Bourges  to  meet  him  there. 
In  her  train  went  Margaret  la  Touroulde,  a  reputable 
woman  about  forty  years  old,  the  wife  of  an  officer  of  the 
treasury.  Joan  had  left  Gien  with  Charles,  and  from 
Selles  she  was  sent  on  to  stay  with  Margaret  in  her  house 
at  Bourges.3  There  she  passed  three  weeks,  almost  con- 
stantly in  the  companionship  of  her  hostess,  going  with 
her  to  confession,  to  mass,  and  to  matins,  sleeping  with 
her  often  at  night,  talking  freely  of  her  own  life  since 
leaving  Domremy. 

Joan's  failure  before  Paris  had  not  shaken  her  trust  in 

1  Alengon  did  carry  on  a  little  campaign  in  his  own  duchy  during 
the  late  autumn.     Godefroy,  Charles  VII.,  40. 

2  P.  iv.  30,  Cagny;  48,  Berri;  v.  71,  Martial  d'Auvergne.     For  a 
supposed  campaign  of  Richemont's  in  Normandy,  probably  apocry- 
phal, see  Cosueau,  Richemont,  174;  Bib.  EC.  Char.,  t.  xlvii.  560;  t.  xlix. 
266. 

8  P.  iii.  86,  M.  la  Touroulde.  Margaret  says  that  Charles  came  to 
Bourges  himself;  but  this  seems  improbable.  According  to  Vallet 
de  V.,  mss.  itin.,  he  was  at  Sully  September  26,  at  Selles  October  1,  at 
Loches  October  10,  and  at  Selles  again,  October  19.  See,  also,  Bib. 
EC.  Char.,  t.  viii.  144. 


182  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

God,  her  voices,  and  her  mission.  That  she  could  have 
taken  Paris,  if  she  had  been  properly  supported,  she  did 
not  doubt;  she  had  grieved  bitterly  over  the  cowardly 
retreat  of  the  army,  but  she  never  wavered  in  her  belief 
that  God  had  sent  her  to  save  France.  Her  voices  no 
longer  directed  her  plan  of  campaign,  but  they  were  con- 
stantly with  her,  encouraging  her  in  every  struggle  with 
the  enemy.  Thus  supported,  it  is  no  wonder  that  she 
was  almost  always  cheerful  and  sanguine. 

She  had  been  disappointed  by  the  failure  of  Alen^on's 
proposed  expedition  to  Normandy,  but  this  had  not  been 
directly  commanded  by  her  voices,  and  when  it  failed, 
she  wished  to  fight  elsewhere.  The  council,  always  vacil- 
lating, allowed  her  to  do  so.1  Its  choice  of  the  object  of 
attack  was  quite  characteristic.  The  truces  with  Bur- 
gundy protected  all  the  territory  in  which  the  campaign 
had  lately  been  carried  on,2  while  the  refusal  to  allow 
Alencon  to  march  on  Normandy  made  it  impossible  to 
attack  that  province.  Moreover,  Charles  did  not  wish 
to  irritate  the  duke  of  Burgundy  or  even  the  English, 
since  his  ambassadors  were  then  at  St.  Denis  with  those 
of  England  and  Burgundy,  discussing  terms  of  peace.3 
Neither  England  nor  Burgundy  had  any  intention  of 
making  peace,  it  is  true.  Even  La  Tremoille  hardly 
wished  it;  but  he  did  wish  negotiation,  and  he  had  to 
keep  up  appearances.  The  council,  therefore,  was  com- 
pelled to  find  an  enemy  for  Joan  whom  neither  England 
nor  Burgundy  seriously  cared  to  protect. 

At  the  western  frontier  of  the  duchy  of  Burgundy,  on 
the  Loire  and  the  Allier,  were  several  fortified  towns 
held  by  soldiers  of  fortune.  One  of  these  men,  Perrinet 
Grasset  or  Gressart,  had  risen  high  in  the  world  by  the 
skillful  exercise  of  his  trade.  Originally  a  mason,  he 
had  entered  the  service  of  Burgundy  and  had  soon  come 

1  P.  i.  109,  J.'s  test. 

2  See  Delisle,  Nouveaux  Documents.  8  Beaucourt,  ii.  412. 


ST.    PIERRE   LE  MOUSTIER   AND   LA   CHARITE.       183 

to  the  command  of  a  well-disciplined  body  of  cut-throats. 
In  1423  he  made  his  fortune  by  the  capture  from  the 
French  of  La  Charite  on  the  Loire,  a  strong  fortress  in 
which  he  lived  for  more  than  ten  years.  Nominally  sub- 
ject to  the  duke,  he  had  plundered  Frenchmen  and  Bur- 
gundians  with  reasonable  impartiality,  and  had  constantly 
refused  to  observe  the  truces  made  from  time  to  time  be- 
tween Charles  and  Philip.  Shortly  after  his  capture  of 
La  Charite  he  had  seized  La  Tremoille,  as  the  favorite 
was  going  on  an  embassy  to  the  duke,  and  had  exacted 
a  large  ransom.  He  had  become  a  terror  to  the  nobles 
as  well  as  to  the  common  people  of  Berry,  and  even  to 
the  citizens  of  Bourges.  When  Philip  sought  to  keep 
him  within  bounds,  he  was  wont  to  threaten  the  duke  that 
he  would  sell  out  his  band  and  his  fortress  to  some  other 
master.1 

Perrinet  Grasset  had  a  niece  who  was  his  ward.  In 
1426  her  hand  was  given  to  a  man  after  her  uncle's  own 
heart.  Francis  of  Surienne,  commonly  called  Francis 
of  Aragon,  was  a  Spanish  nobleman  of  family,  uncle 
of  Rodrigo  Borgia,  who  was  afterwards  Pope  Alexander 
VI.  Having  come  to  France  to  earn  his  living,  he  had 
entered  the  service  of  Burgundy,  and  had  been  made 
bailiff  of  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier,  a  fortified  town  about 

1  For  Grasset,  see  Quicherat,  Rod.  de  Villandrando,  58;  Villaret, 
Campagnes  des  Anglais,  109;  Livre  des  Trahisons,  in  Chron.  Belg. 
ined.,  ii.  131 ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  x.  ;  Plancher,  Hist.  Bourgogne, 
iv.  51,  61,  78,  106,  119,  161,  194;  Vallet  de  V.,  Charles  VII.,  i.  396, 
482;  ii.  301,  n.;  Beaucourt,  ii.  128,  373;  Cosneau,  Richemont,  193;  Les 
la  Tremoille,  165;  Berri,  in  Godefroy,  Charles  VII.,  382;  Beaurepaire, 
Admin,  de  Normandie,  27;  Oliv.  de  la  Marche,  Bk.  Lch.  iii. ;  Canat, 
Documents  inedits  sur  I'hist.  de  Bourgogne,  306,  319,  325,  327,  330,  361, 
365,  369;  Fre'minville,  Ecorcheurs  en  Bourgogne,  29.  In  1427  La 
Charite"  and  "  the  other  places  which  Perrinet  Gressart  holds  "  were 
excluded  from  the  armistice  between  Philip  and  Charles.  Appar- 
ently St.  Pierre  le  Moustier  was  included.  Plancher,  Hist.  Bour- 
gogne, iv.,  Ixxiii. 


184  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

thirty-five  miles  from  La  Charite.  He  had  entered  into 
a  sort  of  partnership  with  Grasset,  and  supported  himself 
and  his  followers  in  Grasset's  fashion.1  For  the  real 
purpose  of  the  war,  that  is,  the  expulsion  of  the  English, 
the  capture  of  St.  Pierre  and  La  Charite  would  be  al- 
most useless.  The  French  approach  to  northern  France 
had  been  so  well  secured,  that  these  fortresses  were  not  a 
serious  menace  to  the  communications  of  an  army  march- 
ing from  Bourges  upon  Paris,  as  they  might  have  been 
before  the  campaign  just  finished.  Undoubtedly,  their 
capture  would  be  a  great  relief  to  all  the  people  of  Berry, 
and  La  Tremoille  had  his  old  grudge  against  Grasset. 
The  duke  of  Burgundy  probably  cared  little  whether 
Grasset  kept  La  Charite  or  not,  and  seems  to  have  had 
no  intention  of  protecting  his  nominal  lieutenants.  For 
these  reasons,  the  council  determined  to  send  Joan  against 
the  two  places.  If  she  were  successful,  no  harm  would  be 
done,  and  La  Tremoille  would  have  satisfied  his  grudge; 
if  she  were  unsuccessful,  her  influence  would  be  almost 
gone,  and  the  favorite  would  be  rid  of  a  danger  which 
threatened  his  control  of  France. 

Some  general  must  accompany  Joan,  and  La  Tremoille 
chose  his  man  with  excellent  discretion.  Charles  of 
Albret  was  his  own  half-brother,  the  head  of  a  great  Gas- 
con house,  and  allied  to  the  blood  royal.  In  early  life 
he  had  played  fast  and  loose  with  English  and  French, 
then  he  had  attached  himself  to  Charles  VII.,  and  by  so 
doing  had  got  a  good  share  of  the  favors  which  the  king 

1  Surienne  was  born  about  1398,  d.  1462.  G.  Chastellain,  iv.  233,  n. 
See,  also,  ii.  261,  265,  266,  298,  305,  314;  Canat,  221,  223,  226,  229, 
232,  330,  337,369;  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  i.  275;  ii.  427  (620);  Ran- 
cher, iv.  163;  Villaret,  37;  Frdminville,  218.  His  unprovoked  at- 
tack on  Fougeres  in  1449,  whe,n  he  was  in  the  English  service  and  a 
Knight  of  the  Garter,  brought  on  the  struggle  which  resulted  in  the 
final  overthrow  of  the  English.  Francis  sent  back  his  garter,  left  the 
English  service,  and  entered  that  of  Spain.  Later  he  held  a  post 
under  Louis  XI. 


ST.    PIERRE   LE   MOUSTIER   AND   LA   CHARITE.       185 

used  to  distribute  among  his  favorites.  He  was  a  faith- 
ful follower  of  La  Tremoille,  and  had  sat  in  the  council 
which  voted  the  truce  with  Burgundy.  Like  all  men  of 
his  station,  he  had  seen  a  good  deal  of  military  service, 
and  he  had  fought  with  Joan  at  Patay.1 

The  failure  of  the  attack  on  Paris  had  lessened  Joan's 
renown,  and  Frenchmen  no  longer  looked  to  her  with  the 
devotion  they  had  felt  three  months  before.  Her  name, 
however,  had  still  some  attraction,  and  with  its  help  a 
force  was  got  together  before  the  end  of  October.  In 
the  mean  time,  she  lived  at  Bourges,  and  the  people  of 
the  city,  especially  the  women,  tried  to  gratify  the  curi- 
osity about  her  which  existed  in  spite  of  her  diminished 
reputation.  The  story  got  abroad  in  the  town  that  she 
was  not  afraid  to  fight,  because  she  knew  by  revelation 
that  she  could  not  be  killed.  Joan  told  the  people  that 
she  had  no  better  chance  of  safety  than  the  other  soldiers. 
The  women  used  to  come  to  the  house  of  Margaret  la 
Touroulde,  bringing  their  beads  and  the  like,  which  they 
begged  Joan  to  touch,  as  if  she  had  been  a  saint;  but  she 
laughed  at  them,  and  said  to  her  hostess,  "Do  you  touch 
them,  and  they  will  be  just  as  good  as  if  I  had  done  it 
myself."  The  king  had  the  grace  to  supply  her  liberally 
with  money,  and  she  spent  it  in  alms,  saying  that  she  was 
sent  for  the  consolation  of  the  poor  and  needy.2 

Toward  the  end  of  October  she  left  Bourges,  and 
marched  with  Albret  against  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier. 
This  town  taken  by  the  Burgundians  in  1422,  was  of 
some  little  importance,  though  not  very  large,  and  stood 
about  two  miles  east  of  the  river  Allier,  at  the  edge  of  a 

1  Albret  was  second  cousin  of  Charles  VII.  (Beaucourt,  i.  375); 
he  died  1471.     At  about  this  time  he  was  made  lieutenant-general  of 
the  forces  (sur  le  fait  de  la  guerre)  in  Berry.     Beaucourt,  ii.  277,  n. 
In  1442  the  constable  Richemont  married  his  daughter.     See,  also, 
Beaucourt,  i.  197,  n.,  412;  ii.  43,  119,  283,  564,  635,  n.;  Plancher,  iv., 
Ixxxi. 

2  P.  iii.  86,  87,  M.  la  Touroulde. 


186  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

bluff  rising  sharply  from  the  fields  which  lay  between  the 
walls  and  the  river.  It  was  well  fortified,  with  strong 
towers  and  a  deep  moat,  and  it  was  held  by  a  sufficient 
garrison.  Francis  of  Surienne  did  not  command  in  per- 
son, but  seems  to  have  trusted  the  defense  to  some  lieu- 
tenant.1 

The  army  sent  with  Joan  was  not  a  large  one,  but  it 
invested  the  place,  and  vigorously  bombarded  the  walls.2 
After  the  siege  had  lasted  a  week  or  so,  Albret  ordered 
an  assault.  The  troops  did  their  best  to  storm  the  place, 
but  failed  to  accomplish  anything,  and  at  length  fell 
back.  Aulon,  Joan's  squire,  charged  with  the  care  of 
her  person,  saw  that  she  remained  near  the  walls  with 
only  four  or  five  men  about  her.  Fearing  that  she  would 
be  wounded  or  taken  by  a  sortie  of  the  garrison,  he  rode 
up  to  her,3  and  asked  her  impatiently  what  she  was  doing 
there  alone,  and  why  she  did  not  fall  back  with  the  rest. 
Deliberately  she  took  off  her  helmet,  and  told  Aulon  that 
she  was  not  alone,  but  that  she  had  in  her  company  fifty 
thousand  of  her  people,  and  that  she  would  not  budge 
from  the  spot  until  she  had  taken  the  town.4 

The  literal-minded  squire  looked  about  him.  Whatever 
she  might  say,  as  he  afterwards  testified,  there  were  not 
above  four  or  five  men  with  her,  an  obvious  fact  known 
to  others  beside  himself.  Again  he  bade  her  leave  the 
place  and  retreat,  as  the  other  soldiers  had  done.  For 
answer  she  told  him  to  bring  hurdles  and  fagots,  so  that 
a  way  could  be  made  over  the  ditch  to  the  walls  of  the 
town,  and  then  she  cried  to  the  troops :  "  Bring  hurdles 
and  fagots,  every  man  of  you,  and  bridge  the  ditch." 

1  Jaladon  de  la  Barre,  J.  a  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier,  18,  22. 

2  P.  v.  147,  148. 

8  He  had  been  wounded  and  could  not  stand  without  crutches. 

4  Joan  may  have  had  a  vision  of  soldiers,  but  this  seems  unlikely. 
Probably  she  spoke  in  some  allegorical  sense,  and  Aulon's  testimony 
may  not  report  the  exact  words. 


ST.    PIERRE   LE  MOUSTIER   AND   LA   CHARITE.       187 

This  was  done,  Aulon  tells  us,  to  his  great  surprise, 
and  at  once  the  town  was  taken  by  storm  without  much 
further  resistance.  The  soldiers,  carried  away  by  the 
fury  of  the  assault,  tried  to  break  into  the  church  and 
pillage  it,  as  they  had  pillaged  the  church  at  Jargeau. 
But  Joan  had  a  great  horror  of  sacrilege ;  "  she  manfully 
forbade  it,"  as  a  priest  who  followed  her  testified,  "and 
never  suffered  that  anything  should  be  carried  away  from 
the  place."1 

About  November  1  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier  was  thus 
taken,  but  its  siege  had  exhausted  the  French  ^ov., 
supplies  and  munitions.  Before  attacking  La  1429- 
Charite,  it  was  necessary  to  get  together  a  considerable 
supply  of  powder,  projectiles,  arblasts,  and  the  like. 
Joan  went  with  Albret  to  Moulins,  the  most  important 
place  in  the  neighborhood,  whence  both  of  them  dis- 
patched letters  to  the  cities  of  central  France,  setting 
forth  the  needs  of  the  army  and  asking  for  help.  From 
some  cities  this  help  was  forthcoming,  and  the  expedition 
marched  against  La  Charite  about  November  10.  The 
marshal  Boussac,  one  of  the  generals  who  had  conducted 
Joan  to  the  relief  of  Orleans,  now  joined  the  army.2 

Between  the  fall  of  St.  Pierre  and  the  siege  of  La 
Charite,  Joan  had  to  undergo  a  trial  inevitable  to  one  in 
her  position.  In  every  province  and  in  every  city  of 
France,  in  almost  every  hamlet,  her  story  was  known. 
Traveling  friars  preached  sermons  in  her  honor,  and  the 
prayers  of  the  church  taught  that  France  had  been  saved 
by  her  hand.3  Might  there  not  be  other  women  who  had 
visions  as  well  as  Joan,  sent  by  God  to  take  part  in 
saving  the  country,  or  in  aiding  her  to  save  it?  It  was 
certain  that  women  would  appear  who  believed  themselves 
to  be  thus  inspired. 

1  P.  iii.  217,  Aulon;  23,  Thierry. 

2  P.  v.  146,  147,  148;  Villaret,  159.    That  Boussac  was  not  with 
the  army  from  the  first  is  expressly  stated  by  Cagny,  P.  iv.  31. 

8  Hardy,  La  Mission  de  /.;  P.  v.  104. 


188  JOAN  OF  ABC. 

Since  the  capture  of  Troyes  in  July,  Friar  Richard, 
the  great  preacher,  had  followed  Joan.  At  first  this 
enthusiastic,  indiscreet  man  had  given  himself  up  entirely 
to  admiration  of  her,  but  her  simple  common  sense  had 
discouraged  his  rhapsodies,  and  she  had  given  no  sign  of 
enrolling  herself  among  his  followers,  as  many  other 
women  had  done.  He  did  not  desert  Joan,  but  he  was 
ready  to  discover  equal  virtue  in  some  other  person,  and 
he  soon  found  his  chance.  At  La  Rochelle  there  lived 
a  young  married  woman,  Catherine  by  name,  who  gave 
out  that  she  was  visited  by  a  white  lady  dressed  in  cloth 
of  gold,  and  that  she  was  divinely  commissioned  to  go 
through  the  cities  of  France  raising  money  for  the  pay- 
ment of  Joan's  soldiers.  She  wished  the  king  to  give  her 
heralds  and  trumpeters,  who  should  order  all  people  to 
bring  forth  their  gold,  silver,  and  treasures,  and  should 
proclaim  to  the  disobedient  that  Catherine  knew  them 
well  and  would  find  out  their  goods.  Somehow  or  other 
this  woman  reached  Berry  and  met  Friar  Richard.  He 
did  not  wish  to  despise  God's  messenger  a  second  time, 
.and  without  hesitation  he  devoted  himself  to  her  cause. 
Instructed,  perhaps,  by  one  of  La  Tremoille's  party, 
perhaps  only  catching  the  drift  of  opinion  at  court,  Cath- 
erine talked  much  of  making  peace  with  the  duke  of 
Burgundy. 

The  two  women  were  brought  together,  and  Catherine 
tried  to  join  herself  to  Joan  and  so  avail  herself  of  Joan's 
reputation.  Joan  was  shrewd;  but  to  disbelieve  Cather- 
ine's story  without  investigation  was  to  doubt  the  power 
of  God.  She  asked,  accordingly,  if  the  white  lady  of 
whom  Catherine  spoke  visited  her  every  evening,  and  she 
proposed  that  they  should  use  the  same  bed  in  order  that 
she,  too,  might  see  the  visitant ;  to  this  Catherine  agreed. 
They  lay  awake  until  midnight,  seeing  nothing ;  then  the 
stout  peasant  girl  could  no  longer  keep  her  eyes  open, 
but  slept  until  morning.  When  she  awoke  she  asked 


ST.    PIERRE   LE   MOUSTIER   AND   LA   CHARITE.       189 

if  the  white  lady  had  come.  Catherine  said  yes,  but 
that  Joan  was  sleeping  so  soundly  that  it  was  impossi- 
ble to  arouse  her.  Joan  asked  if  the  white  lady  would 
come  the  next  evening  also,  and  when  Catherine  replied 
that  she  would,  Joan,  knowing  her  own  weakness,  re- 
solved to  guard  against  it,  and  went  to  sleep  in  the  day- 
time. Thus  refreshed,  she  was  able  to  keep  awake 
through  the  night.  No  white  lady  appeared,  though 
Joan  often  asked  if  she  was  not  coming,  and  Catherine 
always  answered,  "Yes,  very  soon."  The  story  is  espe- 
cially interesting,  not  as  proving  Catherine's  bad  faith, 
which  is  doubtful,1  but  as  showing  the  healthy  physical 
nature  of  Joan,  whom  intense  curiosity  could  not  keep 
awake. 

The  failure  of  Catherine  to  do  as  she  had  promised 
was  not  the  only  cause  of  Joan's  disbelief  in  her.  The 
woman's  bearing  did  not  commend  her,  and  St.  Cath- 
erine and  St.  Margaret,  to  whom  Joan  appealed  in  every 
case  of  doubt,  told  her  that  the  matter  was  only  folly. 
She  wrote  to  the  king  to  put  him  on  his  guard,  and 
when  she  met  him  told  him  the  woman  amounted  to 
nothing.  Catherine  herself  she  advised  to  go  back  to 
her  husband  and  her  children.  It  had  become  a  part  of 
Catherine's  plan  to  visit  the  duke  of  Burgundy  and  urge 
him  to  make  peace.  Joan,  who  herself  had  urged  him 
more  than  once,  from  her  bitter  experience  answered  that 
it  seemed  to  her  that  peace  would  never  be  found  except 
at  the  point  of  the  lance.  Both  Catherine  and  Friar 
Richard  were  much  offended  with  Joan,  and  the  party  at 
court  opposed  to  her  were  now  furnished  with  a  means 
of  discrediting  her  by  setting  up  a  rival  prophetess. 
Catherine,  in  turn,  advised  against  the  expedition  to  La 
Charite,  which  was  ready  to  set  out.2 

1  Probably  she  was  at  least  partly  sincere. 

2  P.  i.  106,  119,  J.'s  test.     It  is  impossible  to  fix  precisely  the  date 
of  Joaii's  meetings  with  Catherine  of  La  Rochelle.     There  were  at 


190  JOAN    OF   AKC. 

About  November  10  the  army  marched  and  sat  down 
before  the  place.  The  details  of  the  siege  are  almost  alto- 
gether unknown.  It  lasted  about  a  month,  during  much 
of  which  time  the  town  was  battered  vigorously  by  the 
French  artillery.1  There  was  great  want  of  money  and 
of  munitions  among  the  besiegers,  and  urgent  appeal 
was  made,  not  only  to  the  court,  but  also  to  the  city  of 
Bourges.  As  usual,  the  king  and  his  council  did  no- 
thing; having  refused  Ale^on's  offer  to  raise  troops, 
having  sent  Joan  on  an  expedition  not  of  her  choosing, 
the  success  of  which  would  have  done  little  good,  they 
left  the  soldiers  to  starve.  Bourges  did  better;  its  peo- 
ple had  suffered  greatly  from  the  ravages  of  Grasset's 
brigands;  they  saw  that  "it  would  be  a  great  pity  for 
the  said  town  and  for  the  whole  country  of  Berry  if  the 
siege  should  be  raised,"  and  they  sent  to  the  army  a  con- 
siderable sum  of  money.2  At  last  an  assault  was  ordered, 

least  two  of  them;  they  both  took  place  after  the  return  to  Gien 
(September  21),  and  one  at  least  before  the  expedition  to  La  Charite' 
(about  November  10).  Joan  testified  that  she  met  Catherine  at  Jar- 
geau  and  at  Montfaucon.  If  the  expedition  to  La  Charite'  was  dis- 
cussed in  the  meeting  at  Jargeau,  that  meeting  probably  took  place 
before  the  expedition  to  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier,  for  it  is  very  unlikely 
that  Joan  traveled  as  far  as  Jargeau  in  the  interval  between  the 
two  expeditions.  During  that  time,  however,  she  may  well  have 
stopped  at  Montfaucon.  Catherine's  objection  that  the  weather  was 
too  cold  for  a  siege  would  have  been  more  reasonable  in  November 
than  in  October,  before  the  attack  on  St.  Pierre.  On  the  whole,  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  Joan  first  met  Catherine  at  Montfaucon 
in  early  November,  and  later  at  Jargeau,  where,  on  very  doubtful 
authority,  Joan  is  said  to  have  spent  her  Christmas.  P.  iv.  474,  Journ. 
Bourg.  Charles  VII.  was  at  Jargeau  on  October  30  (Vallet  de  V., 
mss.  itin.),  but  it  seems  that  Joan  was  not  with  him  when  she  first 
met  Catherine. 

1  The  facetious   sharpshooter,   John  of  Lorraine,    was   wounded 
while  using  his  culverin,  serving  at  the  expense  of  Orleans.  Villaret, 
166. 

2  P.  iv.  31,  Cagny;  49,  Berri;  91,  J.  Chartier;  v.  71,   M.  d'Au- 
vergne;  356. 


ST.   PIERRE   LE  MOUSTIER  AND   LA   CHARITE.       191 

apparently  by  Joan's  direction,1  but  it  was  repulsed  with 
some  loss.  The  money  sent  by  the  men  of  Bourges  was 
spent,  Grasset  was  skillful  and  wary,  the  unpaid  and  ill- 
fed  soldiers  became  discouraged,  and  the  siege  was  aban- 
doned in  disorder,  some  of  the  French  artillery  falling 
into  Grasset's  hands.  There  were  stories  abroad  that 
the  raising  of  the  siege  was  not  due  to  the  mere  neglect 
of  the  court  properly  to  support  Joan.  A  chronicler 
writes  that  Grasset  caused  the  troops  to  retire  "  by  mar- 
velous adroitness,"  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  he  dealt 
directly  with  Albret  or  with  some  other  follower  of  La 
Tremoille.2 

So  ended  the  campaign  in  utter  failure.  Even  if  La 
Charite  had  fallen,  nothing  of  importance  would  have 
been  accomplished;  as  it  was,  not  only  was  there  a  use- 
less waste  of  men  and  guns  and  ammunition  and  money, 
but  the  power  of  Joan's  name,  lessened  by  the  failure 
before  Paris,  was  almost  destroyed.  Commissioned  to 
save  France,  but  no  longer  directed  by  her  voices  pre- 
cisely where  to  go,  she  had  trusted  herself,  like  a  sensible 
girl,  even  against  her  own  judgment,  to  the  advice  of  the 
captains  about  her.3  By  them  she  had  been  betrayed, 
or  at  least  abandoned.  The  only  success  in  the  cam- 
paign, a  success  as  brilliant  as  any  she  had  ever  won, 
though  quite  profitless,  had  been  gained  by  acting  against 
their  advice.  She  was  not  a  general;  to  the  art  of  war 
she  brought  nothing  but  shrewd  common  sense,  a  keen 

1  P.  i.  109,  J.'s  test. 

2  Godefroy,  Hist.  Charles  VII.,  332.     Vallet  de  V.,  Hist.  Charles 
VII.,  ii.  126,  says  that  Grasset  surrendered  La  Charitd  in  January, 
1430,  on  receipt  of  1,300  crowns  from  Bourges.    The  modern  author- 
ities to  which  he  refers  themselves  cite  no  authorities,  and  the  story 
is  impossible.     Grasset  remained  in  command  of  La  Charite'  for  Bur- 
gundy.    Canat,  Doc.  ined.,  330.     Perhaps  Bourges  bought  freedom 
from  attack.     See  P.  v.  356.     La  Charite"  was  finally  taken  in  1440. 
Godefroy,  Charles  VII.,  412. 

8  P.  i.  147, 169,  J.'s  test. 


192  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

eye  for  the  situation,  and  a  quick  sympathy  with  the 
moods  of  her  soldiers.  Given  the  full  command  of  an 
army,  very  likely  she  would  have  failed.  What  she  did 
and  could  bring  to  any  honest  general  of  respectable 
skill  was  the  power  to  make  his  soldiers  fight  as  they 
had  never  fought,  and  to  fill  his  enemies  with  a  myste- 
rious dread  which  paralyzed  the  bravest  of  them.  This 
moral  power,  worth  thousands  of  the  best  fighting  men, 
the  king's  council  —  for  the  wretched  king  had  no  will  of 
his  own  —  deliberately  threw  away. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
LAGNT. 

THE  failure  before  La  Charitd  ended  Joan's  fighting  in 
the  year  1429,  and  she  went  to  join  the  king  at  Dec., 
the  castle  of  Mehun  on  the  Yevre,  where  he  kept  ^arch 
his  court.  His  negotiations  with  Burgundy  still  143°- 
dragged  on  without  result,  except  an  extension  of  the  truce 
to  Easter,  1430. 1  The  English  ignored  the  invitation  to 
become  a  party  to  it,  and  vigorously  carried  on  their  war 
in  Normandy,  regaining  after  long  sieges  some  of  the  places 
which  they  had  lost  at  the  time  of  the  French  advance.2 
In  the  neighborhood  of  Paris,  the  truce  did  not  alto- 
gether restrain  the  soldiery  on  either  side.  The  French 
were  in  double  difficulty,  for  they  were  forbidden  to  fight 
the  Burgundians,  while  they  were  constantly  exposed  to 
the  attacks  of  Philip's  allies,  the  English.  Finding  him- 
self without  sufficient  force  and  controlling  authority, 
the  count  of  Clermont  resigned  his  office  as  lieutenant- 
general  in  the  country  north  of  the  Seine,  and  retired  to 
his  estates.  His  authority,  such  as  it  was,  devolved 
upon  another  prince  of  the  house  of  Bourbon,  the  count 
of  Vendome,3  who  was  under  the  control  of  the  arch- 
bishop and  of  La  Tremoille.4  It  should  be  added  that 
at  this  time  the  favorite  himself  sought  an  interview 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  415.     In  October,  Philip  had  been  made  Henry's 
lieutenant-general.     Rev.  Hist.,  t.  xix.  71,  79. 

2  For  the  operations  in  Normandy,  see  Cochon,  Chron.  Normcmde, 
307  et  seq. 

8  Vendome  had  been  a  lieutenant  of  Clermont.     Vallet  de  V.,  ii. 
121.     See  P.  iv.  90. 

4  Vallet  de  V.,  ii.  121  et  seq. 


194  JOAN  OP  ARC. 

with  the  constable,  in  order  to  assassinate  him.1  Joan's 
exploits  had  recovered  for  Charles  a  considerable  amount 
of  territory  which  was  never  again  to  be  lost,  but  other- 
wise his  prospects  were  not  much  better  than  they  had 
been  a  year  before. 

Joan  passed  at  Mehun  some  weeks  in  idleness,  and 
there  is  hardly  any  record  of  her  doings  during  the  whole 
winter.  She  was  not  as  important  a  person  as  she  had 
been  six  months  before:  the  chroniclers  no  longer  de- 
scribed her  every  action,  the  courtiers  and  the  soldiers 
remembered  that  her  march  on  Paris  had  ended  in  failure, 
and  that  her  siege  of  La  Charite  had  been  a  failure  alto- 
gether; even  the  common  people  began  to  talk  about  her 
rivals,  like  Catherine  of  La  Rochelle.  It  would  seem 
that  these  things  must  have  tried  sorely  even  a  being  like 
Joan.  The  constant  comfort  of  her  voices,  however,  and 
her  undoubting  faith  in  her  mission  kept  her  from  under- 
standing how  hostile  were  many  of  the  royal  councilors, 
how  indifferent  the  people  were  growing,  and  how  much 
of  her  power  was  lost. 

Since  the  expedition  to  Orleans  one  or  more  of  her 
brothers  had  accompanied  her.  They  were  commonplace 
young  men,  like  their  neighbors  at  Domremy,  but  they 
had  their  ambitions,  and  they  wished  to  use  their  sis- 
ter's renown  to  better  their  own  position.  A  patent 
of  nobility  was  desirable,  not  only  for  the  honor  of  the 
thing,  but  also  because  it  conferred  certain  very  sub- 
stantial privileges  in  matters  of  taxation.  Joan  cared 
nothing  for  nobility,  —  it  seems  that  she  tried  to  refuse 
it;  but  La  Tremoille  and  his  party  were  quite  willing 
to  grant  her  brothers'  request.  That  which  she  really 

1  See  Gruel,  75,  76  ;  Lobineau,  Hist.  Bretagne,  i.  582  ;  Cosneau, 
Connet.  de  Richemont,  178  ;  Beaucourt,  ii.  268  et  seq.  It  appears  that 
La  Tre'moille  first  hired  an  assassin,  and  on  his  failure  planned  the 
interview.  It  is  also  probable  that  the  constable  was  trying  to 
assassinate  the  favorite. 


LAGNY.  195 

desired,  an  opportunity  to  fight  against  the  enemies  of 
France,  they  would  not  give  her;  they  were  the  readier 
to  profess  their  gratitude  by  loading  her  with  empty 
honors.  The  patent  was  made  out  accordingly:  Joan's 
services  were  touched  upon,  and  it  was  declared  fitting, 
not  only  on  account  of  her  merits,  but  also  in  recognition 
of  the  Divine  grace,  that  she  and  all  her  family  should 
be  exalted  and  distinguished  by  rewards  worthy  the 
honor  of  the  king's  majesty.  Therefore,  considering  the 
praiseworthy,  grateful,  and  useful  services  many  times 
rendered  by  her  in  the  past,  and  the  services  which  in 
future  it  was  hoped  she  might  render  (this  last  phrase 
must  have  been  pleasant  to  Joan),  she,  her  father,  mother, 
and  brothers,  and  all  their  descendants  to  the  farthest 
generation,  were  ennobled,  with  all  the  privileges  belong- 
ing to  nobility.1 

The  patent  of  nobility  describes  no  coat-of-arms,  but 
shortly  before  the  patent  was  issued,  or  very  soon  after- 
wards, the  brothers  got  leave  to  blazon  a  coat-of-arms, 
which  has  been  treated  as  that  of  Joan  herself,  though 
she  never  used  it.  On  an  azure  field,  between  two  golden 
lilies  of  France,  an  upright  sword  supported  a  crown, 
plainly  signifying  that  the  sword  of  Joan  had  delivered 
the  kingdom.  The  youngest  brother  was  not  content 
with  this  proud  device,  but  preferred  to  invent  or  to  bor- 
row what  he  was  pleased  to  call  the  old  arms  of  his  fam- 
ily. Joan  would  not  substitute  either  one  or  the  other 
for  the  Annunciation,  the  Crucifixion,  and  the  throned 
Creator,  the  devices  under  which  her  victories  had  been 
won.2 

1  P.  v.  150. 

2  P.  v.  225.     A  note  contained  in  a  treatise  on  the  value  of  coins, 
compiled  in  1559,  has  been  published  by  Wallon,   e*d.  illus.,  p.  414. 
It  sets  out  that  a  coat-of-arms,  bearing  the  sword,  crown,  and  lilies, 
was  granted  to  Joan  by  Charles  at  Chinon,  on  June  2,  1429,  before 
the  siege  of  Jargeau.     In  the  year  1429  Charles  was  not  at  Chiiion 


196  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

Before  relieving  Orleans,  while  she  was  living  at 
Tours,  she  had  become  acquainted  with  the  daughter  of 
Haraish  Power,1  the  Scotch  painter  who  made  and  deco- 
rated her  banner.  The  young  girl,  Heliote,  was  to  be 
married  in  February,  and  Joan  wrote  to  the  council  of 
the  city,  asking  that  a  hundred  crowns  might  be  given  to 
buy  the  trousseau  of  her  friend.  If  the  request  had  been 
made  six  months  before,  no  doubt  it  would  have  been 
granted,  but  the  enthusiasm  of  the  councilors  had  cooled. 
The  money  of  the  city,  they  wisely  said,  should  be  spent 
in  maintaining  the  city,  and  not  otherwise.  The  good 
men  did  not  wish  to  seem  ungrateful,  however;  church- 
men and  burghers  voted  to  attend  the  wedding  in  a  body, 
and  to  provide  a  good  supply  of  bread  and  wine  for  the 
wedding  feast,  all  in  honor  of  Joan  the  Maid.2 

In  midwinter  Joan  went  for  a  few  days  to  Orleans, 
accompanied  by  Rabateau,  her  host  at  Poitiers,  and  by 
one  of  her  brothers ; 3  but  most  of  her  time  was  spent  at 
Mehun  until  the  latter  part  of  February,  1430,  when  La 
Tremoille  carried  both  king  and  court  to  his  castle  of 
Sully  on  the  Loire.4  Here  Joan  lived  for  several  weeks, 
and  here  she  received  a  curious  request.  As  has  been 

after  May  15,  and  the  statement  in  the  note  carries,  therefore,  very 
little  authority.  Joan  herself  (P.  i.  117)  testified  that  she  never  had 
a  coat-of-arms,  but  that  the  king  gave  one  to  her  brothers  like  that 
mentioned  in  the  text.  This  she  had  described  to  a  painter,  appar- 
ently in  Rouen,  who  had  asked  what  were  her  arms.  Very  possibly 
the  arms  were  given  to  all  Joan's  family  at  one  time,  and  her  answer 
at  the  trial  meant  simply  that  she  did  not  use  them;  or  the  arms  may 
have  been  given  to  her  brothers  only,  while  later  tradition  attributed 
them  to  Joan  also. 

1  See  Vallet  de  V.,  ii.  65  ;  Lefevre-Pontalis,  Lafausse  J.,  26. 

2  P.  v.  154,  271. 

3  P.  v.  270.     At  some  time  or  other  she   seems  to  have  hired  a 
house  from  the  chapter  of  the  cathedral  for  a  long  term  of  years. 
See  Doinel,  Notes  sur  une  maison  de  J.  •  Rev.  Hist.,  t.  xix.  66. 

4  Vallet  de  V.,  mss.  itin.     Before  going  to  Sully,  Charles  seems  to 
have  spent  a  few  days  in  Jargeau. 


LAGNY.  197 

said,  the  fame  of  her  exploits,  embellished  by  legend,  was 
spread  over  all  Europe.  In  the  accounts  of  the  city  of 
Ratisbon  has  been  found  a  payment  for  the  exhibition  of 
a  picture  of  Joan  fighting  the  English.  All  Germany, 
and  eastern  Germany  in  particular,  was  greatly  excited 
over  the  struggle  between  the  Hussites  and  the  Cath- 
olics in  Bohemia.  The  latter,  knowing  that  Joan  was 
commissioned  by  God  for  holy  warfare,  in  their  distress 
appealed  to  her  piety.  In  her  name,  accordingly,  a 
manifesto  against  the  Hussites  was  issued.  With  fervid 
clerkly  rhetoric  their  sins  were  described,  and  they  were 
threatened  with  speedy  destruction  at  the  hands  of  Joan. 
Carried  away  in  the  flow  of  his  periods,  the  scribe  made 
Joan  say  that  perhaps  she  would  leave  the  English,  in 
order  "to  root  out  your  hideous  superstition  with  the 
edge  of  the  sword,  and  snatch  you  either  from  heresy  or 
from  life."  The  style  of  the  letter  shows  pretty  plainly 
that  Joan  had  no  part  in  its  composition,  but  she  proba- 
bly shared  the  horror  of  the  heretical  Hussites  which  was 
felt  by  all  religious  Frenchmen  about  her.1 

During  these  weeks  at  Sully,  Joan  had  little  time  to 
think  about  the  crimes  of  the  Hussites.  The  end  of  the 
truce  was  approaching.  In  a  few  weeks  the  Burgun- 
dians  would  be  free  to  take  the  field ;  already  their  forces 
were  summoned,2  and  it  behooved  the  French  to  be  ready 
for  them.  There  was  a  chance  to  retrieve  the  mistakes 
of  the  year  just  ended,  and  vigorously  to  set  about  driv- 

1  P.  v.  270, 156.   Notice  the  contrast  between  the  balanced  rhetoric 
of  this  letter  with  its  metaphors  and  similes  and  the  unadorned  direct- 
ness of  Joan's  genuine  letters,  disfigured  though  they  sometimes  are 
by  clumsy  repetitions.    For  other  letters  supposed  to  have  been  writ- 
ten by  Joan  to  persons  asking  her  help,  see  P.  v.  253.     In  thank- 
fulness for  his  escape  from  disease  by  means  of  the  intercession  of 
St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois,  a  canon  of  Angers  celebrated  mass  for  the 
king,  the  Maid,  and  the  welfare  of  the  kingdom,  May  5, 1430.     P.  v. 
164. 

2  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxxi. 


198  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

ing  the  English  from  France.  The  royalists  in  Paris 
were  plotting  to  open  the  gates  to  Charles's  soldiers,1  the 
inhabitants  of  the  places  occupied  by  the  French  were  in 
constant  fear  of  an  attack  by  the  Anglo-Burgimdians. 

Six  months  earlier,  after  abandoning  his  campaign 
in  northern  France  and  before  retreating  to  the  Loire, 
Charles  had  assured  his  frightened  subjects,  and  espe- 
cially the  men  of  Rheims,  that,  as  soon  as  the  truce  was 
ended,  he  would  return  at  the  head  of  a  greater  army 
than  ever,  and  with  that  army  would  recover  his  realm. 
The  time  was  come ;  it  was  vain  to  hope  that  he  would 
take  the  field  in  person,  but  he  made  no  attempt  even  to 
raise  an  army,  and  the  men  of  Rhehns  were  in  great  dis- 
tress. Their  captain,  a  nephew  of  the  archbishop,  had 
abandoned  them,  and  was  gone  no  one  knew  where,  hav- 
ing first  got  a  safe-conduct  from  the  duke  of  Burgundy.2 
A  conspiracy  to  betray  them  to  the  English  had  been 
made  between  a  canon  of  the  cathedral  and  Peter  Cau- 
chon,  count  bishop  of  Beauvais,  himself  once  a  canon  of 
Rheims,  now  a  fierce  partisan  of  the  English.  The  plot 
was  discovered,  the  canon  was  forced  to  confess,  and  was 
sentenced  to  perpetual  imprisonment  in  chains ;  but  the 
men  of  Rheims  wrote  their  fears  to  Joan.  On  March  16 
she  answered  them  from  Sully,  bidding  them  man  their 
walls,  if  attacked,  and  promising  to  succor  them  speedily. 
"I  would  send  you  other  good  news,  whereat  you  would 
be  right  glad,"  she  added,  "but  I  fear  lest  this  letter 
should  be  taken  by  the  way,  and  lest  they  should  learn 
the  said  news."3  Probably  she  had  in  mind  the  march 
into  the  north  which  Charles  had  promised  to  lead  in 
person.4 

1  See  Journ.  Bourg.,  ami.  1430  ;  Vallet  de  V.,  ii.  140  ;  Longnon, 
Paris  sous  la  domin.  anglaise,  301. 

2  Varin,  Arch.  Leg.  Reims,  Stat.,  t.  i.  p.  746,  n.  ;  P.  iv.  381. 

»  Jadart,  /.  a  Reims,  109  et  seq.  ;  P.  v.  129  ;  Wallon,  eU  illus.,  202. 
4  See  Beaucourt,  ii.  266. 


LAGNY.  199 

A  few  days  later  the  men  of  Eheims  wrote  again  to 
her,  begging  her  to  contradict  certain  stories  of  their 
disloyalty  which  had  been  carried  to  the  king.  She 
promised  to  do  so.  "I  know  well,"  she  went  on,  "that 
you  have  much  to  suffer  from  the  cruelty  of  our  enemies, 
those  treacherous  Burgundians,  but  by  God's  will  you 
shall  be  delivered  shortly,  that  is  to  say,  as  soon  as  possi- 
ble. I  beg  and  pray  you,  my  very  dear  friends,  to  guard 
well  your  good  city  for  the  king,  and  to  keep  good  watch. 
You  shall  soon  hear  good  news  of  me  more  plainly.  At 
present  I  write  you  no  more,  save  that  all  Brittany  is 
French,  and  the  duke  will  send  the  king  three  thousand 
soldiers  paid  for  two  months."1 

On  March  28  this  letter  was  written  from  Sully; 
within  the  next  ten  days  the  king  went  from  Sully  to 
Jargeau.2  Before  his  departure  Joan  came  to  a  decision 
unlike  any  she  had  yet  taken.  Her  hope  of  help  from 
Brittany  was  quite  vain ;  perhaps  the  hope  was  held  out 
simply  to  deceive  her,  and  she  may  have  learned  the  truth. 
Not  improbably  the  proposed  departure  of  Charles  for 
Jargeau  showed  her  that  there  was  no  chance  of  his  tak- 
ing the  field.  In  some  way  or  other  the  poor  girl  learned 
that  the  king  whom  she  had  crowned  cared  little  for  the 
kingdom  she  was  trying  to  win  for  him,  and  that  the 
cities  she  had  freed  were  to  be  left  almost  defenseless  to 
his  enemies.  Her  loyalty  to  her  anointed  king  was  part 
of  her  religion,  and  never  failed,  even  after  the  plainest 
proof  of  his  cowardice  and  imbecility;  but  she  held  this 
loyalty,  as  many  an  article  of  faith  is  held,  without  push- 
ing it  to  its  logical  consequences,  and  she  recognized  that 
nothing  could  be  hoped  from  him  in  the  struggle  which 
was  before  her.  To  La  Tremoille  and  his  party  she  was 
bound  by  no  loyalty  whatever,  and  she  was  coming  to 
understand  pretty  plainly  their  treason  to  France. 

1  P.  v.  161;  Jadart,  106.      See  Lobineau,  Hist.  Bretagne,  i.  582  ; 
ii.  1007. 

2  Vallet  de  V.,  mss.  itin. 


200  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

At  the  very  end  of  March,  or  on  one  of  the  first  days 
April,  °f  April,1  she  left  Sully  quietly  without  leave 
1430.  Of  fae  king  and  his  council.  Believe  in  God  as 
she  might,  she  could  not  be  quite  as  sanguine  as  she  had 
been  on  leaving  Vaucouleurs  a  year  before.  Then  she 
had  taken  for  granted  the  honest  patriotism  and  innocent 
life  of  all  Frenchmen  whom  she  met;  now  she  knew  that 
much  wickedness  and  treason  were  to  be  found  even 
among  Frenchmen.  Then  she  had  been  bidden  by  her 
voices  to  raise  the  siege  of  Orleans  and  to  lead  Charles 
to  Rheims;  now  she  received  no  such  definite  commands, 
and  by  the  exercise  of  her  own  judgment  must  find  out 
how  to  save  France.  She  felt  her  loss  of  importance  in 
the  eyes  of  the  people  and  of  the  soldiers,  and  her  very 
voices,  still  promising  the  final  deliverance  of  the  king- 
dom, said  less  of  present  success,  and  even  hinted  at  some 
disaster. 

She  rode  northward  with  her  little  military  household, 
joining  herself,  perhaps,  to  some  band  of  soldiers  going 
that  way.  She  had  no  definite  plan,  except  to  get  into 
the  field,  and  she  was  ready  to  help  any  good  work  as 
she  went.  Instead  of  going  through  Champagne  by 
the  road  which  she  had  opened  the  year  before,  she  kept 
farther  to  the  westward,  intending  to  pass  near  Paris. 
Her  way  was  obstructed  by  Anglo-Burgundian  fortresses, 
and  she  seems  to  have  traveled  rather  slowly,  waiting  for 
the  truce  to  end.  The  chroniclers  give  almost  no  account 
of  her  journey. 

Directly  in  her  path,  at  the  crossing  of  the  Seine,  was 
the  city  of  Melun.  It  had  been  taken  by  Henry  V.  ten 
years  before,2  and  had  been  held  by  the  English  until 
September,  1429,  when,  with  Paris  and  many  other 

1  Cagny  says  that  her  departure  was  in  March.     P.  iv.  32.     He 
says,  also,  that  it  was  without  the  king's  knowledge,  but  it  must  have 
been  tacitly  permitted  by  the  council,  since  Aulon  accompanied  her. 

2  Vallet  de  V.,  Charles  VII.,  i.  226. 


LAGNY.  201 

places,  it  had  "been  handed  over  to  Duke  Philip  as  the 
price  of  his  support.1  Its  Burgundian  captain  was  busy 
elsewhere,  and  his  brothers,  who  acted  as  his  lieutenants, 
kept  poor  guard.  The  people  of  Melun  were  tired  of  the 
English  and  Burgundians,  and  more  than  ready  to  ac- 
knowledge Charles.  Hearing,  it  may  be,  of  Joan's  ap- 
proach, they  rose  suddenly  upon  the  garrison,  which 
found  itself  thrust  out  of  the  place  before  it  had  time  to 
comprehend  what  was  going  on.2  This  happened  about 
Easter,  April  16,  and  Joan  was  thus  able  to  cross  the 
Seine  without  trouble.3 

She  spent  several  days  in  Melun  waiting,  it  is  likely, 
to  see  if  the  English  or  Burgundians  would  try  to  retake 
the  place.  What  was  the  size  of  her  party  we  do  not 
know.  Probably  it  was  small,  made  up  of  a  few  soldiers 
who  were  ready  for  adventure  and  desirous  of  reaching 
the  seat  of  war;  but  small  as  it  was,  it  would  be  useful 
if  Melun  were  attacked.  One  day  in  Easter  week,  while 
Joan  was  on  duty  in  the  fortifications  of  the  city,  her 
voices  spoke  to  her,  and  told  her  that  she  should  be  made 
prisoner.  Startled,  but  not  terrified,  she  asked  when 
this  was  to  happen.  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Margaret  an- 
swered that  she  would  be  taken  before  midsummer,  or 
St.  John's  Day,  June  24.  This  must  certainly  come  to 
pass,  they  told  her;  but  she  need  not  be  frightened,  and 
ought  to  bear  all  with  patience,  since  God  would  help 
her. 

Over  and  over  again,  nearly  every  day,  the  voices  fore- 
told her  capture.  What  they  said  may  not  always  have 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  35,  n. 

2  Chastellain,  ii.  28. 

8  It  is  impossible  to  say  with  certainty  if  Joan  reached  Melun  be- 
fore its  capture.  Her  expression,  "  sur  les  fosse's  de  Melun,"  may 
imply  that  she  did,  but  Chastellain  strongly  implies  the  contrary. 
The  truce  was  over  at  Easter,  and  the  occupation  of  Melun  by  the 
French  probably  took  place  immediately  afterwards. 


202  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

been  a  definite  prediction,  but  the  certainty  of  capture 
was  kept  constantly  before  her.  In  the  face  of  this  cer- 
tainty her  behavior  was  characteristic.  She  begged  the 
saints  who  spoke  to  her  that  she  might  die  when  she  was 
taken,  without  long  suffering  in  prison.  With  a  healthy 
disregard  of  logic,  she  tried  to  learn  the  time  of  her  cap- 
ture, hoping  to  avoid  it ;  and  when  she  failed  in  this,  she 
kept  right  on  in  her  work,  as  if  she  had  received  no 
warning  whatever.  If  she  could  have  escaped  by  keep- 
ing herself  close  for  a  day,  she  would  have  done  so;  to 
save  herself  by  going  back  to  court  and  staying  there, 
never  entered  her  mind.  She  cheered  herself,  as  best 
she  might,  by  the  promise  of  God's  help  which  her  voices 
brought  her,  and  she  prepared  to  obey  their  commands, 
whatever  these  might  be.1 

In  the  latter  part  of  April,  soon  after  Easter,  Joan 
rode  on  from  Melun  to  cross  the  Marne  at  Lagny,  a 
small  fortified  town  on  the  south  bank  of  the  river,  which 
in  the  preceding  August  had  acknowledged  Charles.2 
The  freebooting  soldiers  on  both  sides  had  paid  little 
respect  to  the  truce  while  it  lasted ;  now  that  it  was  over, 
the  whole  country  was  in  arms.  The  plot  to  give  up 
Paris  to  the  Armagnacs  had  failed;  some  of  the  conspir- 
ators were  tortured  into  confession,  and  many  had  been 
executed.3  Philip  of  Burgundy  had  gathered  a  large  army 
at  Arras,  and  had  sent  a  strong  detachment  to  reinforce 
the  garrison  of  Paris;  4  altogether  the  prospects  of  the 

1  P.  i.  115,  J.'s  test.     Our  knowledge  of  these  predictions  comes 
from  Joan's  testimony,  given  long  after  the  predictions  were  fulfilled. 
A  careful  study  of  this  testimony,  however,  leaves  a  strong  impression 
that  her  recollections  were  colored  very  little,  if  at  all,  by  subse- 
quent events.     St.  John's  Day,  a  natural  term  to  fix  upon,  was  about 
two  mouths  after  the  prophecy.     The  actual  capture  was  on  May  23, 
a  full  month  earlier. 

2  P.  iv.  88,  J.  Chartier. 

8  Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1430. 

4  Chastellain,  ii.  30  ;  St.  Remy,  ch.  clviii. 


LAGNY.  203 

royalists  were  not  very  bright.  At  just  this  time  a  party 
of  Anglo-Burgundians,  led  by  one  Franquet  of  Arras,  a 
soldier  of  fortune,1  set  out  from  Paris  to  take  a  castle 
which  the  French  were  fortifying,  and  to  harry  the  coun- 
try about  Lagny.2 

While  on  the  road,  the  leaders  were  tempted  to  turn 
aside  and  fall  upon  a  defenseless  village  and  abbey. 
There  was  no  resistance,  and  the  party  was  soon  loaded 
with  the  spoils  of  the  church  and  of  the  poor  peasants ; 
thus  incumbered,  it  pushed  on  to  the  castle.  But  the 
sack  of  a  church  and  a  village,  in  itself  a  proceeding 
almost  altogether  safe,  could  not  be  carried  on  without 
arousing  attention.  The  castle  was  not  surprised,  and 
it  resisted  stoutly;  the  French  from  Lagny  and  the 
neighboring  garrisons,  hearing  the  alarm,  came  quickly 
to  their  comrades'  relief,  and  shut  in  Franquet  and  his 
troops  between  themselves  and  the  castle.  His  English 
archers  formed  in  good  order,  —  the  freebooters,  to  do 
them  justice,  were  brave  enough,  —  and  the  first  attack  of 
the  French  was  repulsed.  But  the  French  had  the  ad- 
vantage both  of  position  and  of  numbers.  The  artillery 
of  the  castle  played  upon  Franquet's  rear;  Joan  herself, 

1  In  1416  Franquet  was  serving  the  duke  of  Burgundy  in  company 
with  Perrinet  Grasset.     Liv.  Trahisons,  131. 

2  I  have  assumed  that  the  expedition  of  Franquet  described  by 
Jean  Chartier  (P.  iv.  91),  Monstrelet  (P.  iv.  399),  and  by  Chastellain, 
(ii.  40),  is  the  same  as  that  mentioned  by  Cochon,  310,  and  in  the 
Journ.  Bourg.,  ann.  1430,  though  the  last  two  accounts  say  nothing  of 
Franquet  or  of  Joan.     The  date  is  about  the  same.    Journ.  Bourg. 
and  Cochon  put  it  at  the  end  of  April;  Monstrelet  early  in  May  ;  but 
if  Franquet's  trial  lasted  a  fortnight  (P.  i.  158),  his  capture  prob- 
ably happened  before  May  1.     The  numbers  are  the  same  in  Chartier, 
Monstrelet,  Chastellain,  and  Journ.  Bourg.  •  much  larger  in  Cochon. 
The  result  of  the  encounter  is  the  same.     Journ.  Bourg.  mentions 
only  English  ;   Cochon,  English  and  Burgundians  ;  Monstrelet  and 
Chastellain  speak  of  "  those  of  the  party  of  Burgundy,"  and  men- 
tion archers,  who  were  probably  English.     Journ.  Bourg.,  Chastellain, 
and  Monstrelet,  all  mention  the  assembling  of  the  French  garrisons. 


204  JOAN   OF   ABC. 

with  certain  captains  from  Lagny,  attacked  the  English 
in  front,  and  retreat  was  impossible.  Nearly  all  Fran- 
quet's  men  were  killed  or  taken,  he  himself  being  made 
prisoner.  The  booty  was  large,  for  it  is  hinted  by  a 
Burgundian  chronicler  that  the  French  did  not  return  to 
their  former  possessors  all  the  goods  taken  by  the  English 
from  the  monks  and  the  peasants.1 

In  the  fifteenth  century  a  notable  prisoner  like  Fran- 
quet  of  Arras  was  generally  held  to  ransom,  being  treated 
with  reasonable  humanity  until  his  ransom  was  paid. 
For  some  reason  Franquet  was  very  obnoxious  to  his  cap- 
tors. He  was  a  robber,  a  traitor,  and  a  murderer,  they 
said,  —  words  of  doubtful  import,  since  nearly  every  sol- 
dier robbed  all  those  weaker  than  himself,  and  there  were 
few  Frenchmen  who  had  not  at  some  time  in  the  course  of 
the  long  civil  war  betrayed  one  party  or  the  other.  As 
for  murder,  the  laws  of  war  were  too  loose  for  its  clear 
definition.  For  murder,  treason,  and  robbery,  however, 
Franquet  was  immediately  tried  before  the  bailiff  of 
Senlis,2  and  was  by  him  found  guilty  and  condemned  to 
death.  The  trial  lasted  about  a  fortnight,  and  Joan 
was  not  particularly  concerned  with  it,  though  she  sug- 
gested that  Franquet's  life  should  be  spared,  and  that  he 
should  be  held  as  hostage  for  a  certain  Parisian  inn- 
keeper, perhaps  one  of  the  men  who  had  just  conspired 
to  surrender  Paris  to  the  French.  The  innkeeper,  how- 
ever, was  already  dead,  and  the  bailiff  told  Joan  that 
she  would  be  doing  a  great  injustice  if  she  saved  the 
prisoner's  life.  She  was  no  lawyer;  she  had  no  commis- 
sion to  administer  justice,  and  she  could  have  had  little 
sympathy  with  a  freebooter  like  Franquet.  "  Since  my 

1  Journ.  Bourg.,  ubi  supra. 

2  Jean  de  Troissy.     Jadart,  /.  a  Reims,  110.     See  Lobineau,  Hist. 
Bretagne,  i.  594.     Richard  Pocaire  is  called  bailiff  of  Senlis  (Lobineau, 
i.  582  ;  Beaucourt,  ii.  271),  but  the  contemporary  authority  cited  by 
Jadart  seems  conclusive. 


LAGNY.  205 

man  whom  I  wished  to  get  is  dead,"  she  said, "deal  with 
this  man  as  justice  requires."  Franquet  was  beheaded, 
accordingly,  "greatly  bewailed  by  those  of  his  way  of 
thinking,  for  as  much  as  in  arms  he  was  a  man  of  valiant 
conduct."1 

While  Joan  was  staying  at  Lagny,  she  heard  that  an 
unbaptized  baby,  three  days  old,  had  been  brought  life- 
less to  the  church  of  Our  Lady,  in  faint  hope  that  it 
might  revive,  at  least  for  a  moment.  The  maidens  of  the 
town  were  on  their  knees  before  the  shrine  of  the  Virgin, 
and  Joan  was  asked  to  join  them  in  the  prayer  that  God 
and  the  Virgin  would  give  back  life  to  the  child.  She 
went  there  and  prayed  with  the  others.  The  child  was 
black  in  the  face,  —  black  as  her  coat,  Joan  said,  —  but 
after  a  while  it  cried  two  or  three  times,  and  its  color  be- 
gan to  come  back.  It  was  baptized  at  once,  and  though 
it  died  almost  immediately  afterwards,  its  parents  had 
the  satisfaction  of  burying  their  child  in  consecrated 
ground.  Of  course  the  story  went  about  Lagny  that 
Joan's  prayers  had  brought  a  dead  baby  back  to  life,  but 
Joan  herself  did  not  feel  sure  that  the  baby  had  ever  been 
dead.  To  the  notion  that  she  had  wrought  a  miracle, 
she  paid  no  heed  whatever.2 

The  capture  of  Melun  and  the  defeat  of  Franquet  were 
an  auspicious  opening  to  Joan's  campaign;  we  know  too 
little  of  the  details  of  these  exploits  to  determine  how 
much  credit  for  them  fairly  belongs  to  her.  That  she 
carried  herself  gallantly  in  them  is  evident,  and  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  after  leaving  Melun  she  fought 
with  the  certainty  of  approaching  imprisonment  before 
her. 

1  P.  i.  158,  J.'s  test. ;  iv.  400,  Monstrelet.     See  B.  de  Molandon 
L'armee  anglaise,  38. 
8  P.  i.  105,  J.'s  test. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
COMPIEGNE. 

IN  the  early  spring  of  1429  the  eyes  of  all  Frenchmen 
were  turned  toward  Orleans.     A  year  later,  the 


Dec.,         eyes  of   all  men  in  the  north  of  France  were 

1429. 

turned  toward  Compiegne.  This  was  a  walled 
town  of  five  thousand  inhabitants  or  thereabouts,1  on  the 
left  or  eastern  bank  of  the  Oise,  about  forty  miles  north- 
east of  Paris.  Its  political  history  had  been  a  varied  one  : 
twice  it  had  been  held  by  the  Burgundians,  and  twice  had 
it  been  taken  from  them  by  the  Armagnacs  ;  then  it  had 
fallen  to  the  English  in  consequence  of  the  treaty  of 
Troyes,  and  in  August,  1429,  it  had  opened  its  gates  to 
Charles  VII.2  This  had  been  done  quite  willingly,  and 
the  loyalty  of  its  citizens  was  real  and  reasonably  unani- 
mous. At  Compiegne  had  been  held  the  conferences 
with  the  Burgundian  ambassadors,  and  the  truce  was 
signed  there.  After  receiving  Charles,  the  people  of 
Compiegne  seem  to  have  desired  as  captain  of  their  town 
one  William  of  Flavy,  an  experienced  soldier  and  a  man 
neither  better  nor  much  worse  than  other  French  cap- 
tains of  the  day.  La  Tremoille,  however,  wished  the 

1  See  Sorel,  La  prise  de  J.  devant  Compiegne,  366  et  seq.     In  1448 
the  population  of  the  town  is  said  to  have  fallen  to  1,200,  or  400 
households  (menages).     As  over  500  dwelling-houses  had  been  de- 
stroyed in  the  civil  wars,  however,  and  as  the  statement  was  made 
with  the  object  of  showing  as  bad  a  condition  of  affairs  as  possible,  I 
do  not  think  the  normal  population  could  have  been  less  than  5,000. 
Probably  it  was  larger. 

2  See  Sorel,  passim. 


COMPIEGNE.  207 

captaincy  for  himself,  and  got  it  as  a  matter  of  course, 
making  Flavy  his  lieutenant  by  way  of  compromise.1 

The  duke  of  Burgundy,  having  obtained  a  truce  advan- 
tageous to  himself  and  injurious  to  the  royal  cause,  natu- 
rally wished  some  further  consideration  for  his  complai- 
sance, and  asked  that  Compiegne  be  delivered  to  him  for 
the  term  of  the  truce.2  La  Tremoille  and  the  royal  coun- 
cil made  no  objection,  and  the  inhabitants  were  ordered 
to  open  their  gates  to  the  duke's  soldiers.  This  they 
flatly  refused  to  do.  Flavy,  who  was  unwilling  to  offend 
either  the  citizens  or  the  favorite,  posted  off  with  his 
excuses  to  the  chancellor.3  That  functionary  came  to 
Compiegne,  summoned  the  people,  and  told  them  that  it 
was  necessary  to  give  up  the  city  to  the  duke  in  order  to 
win  him  from  his  English  allies.  The  citizens  replied 
that  they  were  the  king's  humble  subjects,  willing  to 
obey  him  and  to  serve  him  with  their  bodies  and  their 
goods,  but  that  they  would  not  trust  themselves  to  the 
duke,  on  account  of  the  hatred  he  had  conceived  against 
them  for  their  loyalty.  The  chancellor  repeated  his 
orders,  but  they  were  not  heeded;  nothing  could  shake 
the  resolution  of  the  citizens,  who  preferred  to  destroy 
themselves,  their  wives  and  children,  rather  than  give 
themselves  up  to  the  duke's  mercy.4 

1  For  Flavy,  see  Lafons  de  Melicocq,  Noyon  et  le  Noyonnais,  82, 256  ; 
Flourac,  Jean  I.  Comle  de  Foix,  118.     In  1428  he  had  dofended  Beau- 
mont against  John  of  Luxemburg,  and  in  a  sortie  had  taken  prisoner 
a  notable  man  at  arms  of  Luxemburg's  company.     Fearing  that  he 
could  not  hold  out,  and  that  he  should  thus  lose  the  ransom  of  his 
prisoner,  he  celebrated  the  man's  funeral  and  buried  his  effigy  in  sight 
of  the  besiegers,  hoping  thus  that  he  might  put  them  off  their  guard, 
and  be  able  to  smuggle  away  his  prisoner.      Apparently  the  trick 
did  not  succeed.     Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  xlvii. 

2  -See  the  lay  of  Alain  Chartier  to  the  duke  of  Burgundy,  recalling 
him  to  his  duty.     Chastellain,  ii.  26,  n. 

8  The  archbishop  of  Rheims. 

4  P.  v.  173  ;  Beaucourt,  ii.  414  ;  Quicherat,  Aperfus  nouveaux,  82. 


208  JOAN   OF   ABC. 

The  miserable  inefficiency  of  the  royal  government 
sometimes  served  a  good  purpose.  As  the  citizens  were 
obstinate,  a  new  bargain  was  made  with  Philip,  and  Pont 
Ste.  Maxence  was  handed  over  to  him  instead  of  Com- 
piegne. The  duke  did  not  intend  to  give  up  the  place, 
however;  during  the  truce  he  could  not  act,  but  as  soon 
as  it  was  over  he  was  determined  to  take  the  town. 

Early  in  January  he  celebrated  at  Bruges  with  great 
magnificence  his  marriage  with  his  third  wife, 
April,  Isabella  of  Portugal.1  He  was  probably  the 
richest  prince  of  his  time,  and  his  court  was  the 
most  splendid.  On  this  occasion,  after  weeks  of  feasting, 
he  founded  with  great  pomp  the  Order  of  the  Golden 
Fleece,  which  remains  to  this  day  in  the  gift  of  his  de- 
scendants, the  emperor  of  Austria  and  the  king  of  Spain. 
There  were  tournaments,  also,  at  Bruges  and  at  Arras, 
wherein  French  and  Burgundian  knights  contended  in  all 
courtesy,  who  were  soon  to  be  fighting  in  earnest.2  The 
coming  of  Lent  put  a  stop  to  the  gayety,  but  Philip  util- 
ized the  season  of  fasting  by  sending  out  summons  to  his 
subjects  to  meet  him  by  Easter  at  Peronne.  In  this 
stronghold,  some  fifty  miles  north  of  Compiegne,  called 
Peronne  the  Maid,  because  it  never  had  been  captured, 
he  spent  his  Easter  with  the  duchess.  As  soon  as  the 
festival  was  over,  and  the  truce  was  at  an  end,  he  took 
the  field  with  a  large  force.3 

The  city  of  Compiegne  is  situated  on  the  east  bank  of 
the  Oise,  just  south  of  the  place  where  the  Aisne  enters 
that  river  from  the  east  and  the  Aronde  from  the  west. 
To  reach  Compiegne  from  Peronne,  which  is  west  of  the 
Oise  and  north  of  the  Aronde,  it  was  necessary  for  the 

1  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  eh.  Ixxvii. 

2  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chaps.  Ixxix.,  Ixxxi. ;  St.  Remy,  chaps,  civ.,  clvi., 
clvii. 

8  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chaps.  Ixxxi.,  Ixxxii.  On  March  8  the  English 
gave  Philip  Champagne  and  Brie,  and  12,500  marks  in  cash.  Vallet 
de  V.,  ii.  138.  The  duke  was  an  expensive  but  indispensable  ally. 


COMPIEGNE.  209 

duke  either  to  cross  the  Aronde  and  the  Oise,  or  else  to 
cross  the  Oise  and  the  Aisne.  The  fortress  of  Gournay 
stood  at  the  passage  of  the  Aronde,1  while  that  of  Choisy 
covered  the  only  passage  of  the  Aisne  within  many  miles 
of  Compiegne. 

Philip  arrived  before  Gournay  at  the  end  of  April. 
There  was  no  French  army  to  take  the  field  for  its  relief, 
and  the  captain  of  Gournay  feared  an  assault,  —  very 
possibly  with  good  reason.  Being  summoned  by  Philip 
to  surrender,  he  agreed  to  abandon  the  place  on  August 
1,  unless  sooner  relieved,  and  in  the  mean  time  to  keep 
strict  neutrality.2  By  this  treaty  Philip  secured  his  com- 
munications between  Peronne  and  the  camp  which  he 
intended  to  establish  in  front  of  Compiegne,  on  the  west 
bank  of  the  Oise. 

Between  him  and  the  city,  however,  flowed  the  Oise, 
an  unfordable  river.  It  might  be  crossed,  in-  May, 
deed,  at  Pont  Ste.  Maxence,  fifteen  miles  down-  143°* 
stream,  and  by  way  of  that  place  Philip  might  march 
against  Compiegne ;  but  the  position  of  an  army  encamped 
about  Compiegne,  which  could  communicate  with  its  base 
of  supplies  only  by  Pont  Ste.  Maxence,  would  be  greatly 
exposed.  A  French  army  marching  along  the  north  bank 
of  the  Aisne,  and  protected  by  that  river  from  the  Bur- 
gundians  besieging  Compiegne,  might  safely  reach  Choisy, 
and,  crossing  the  bridge  which  Choisy  commanded,  might 
fall  suddenly  upon  the  Burgundian  rear.  To  make  the 
blockade  of  Compiegne  safe  and  complete,  it  was  neces- 
sary first  to  reduce  Choisy. 

1  Probably  the  Aronde  could  have  been  crossed  almost  anywhere, 
but  Philip  could  not  safely  leave  a  fortress  like  Gournay  so  near  his 
line  of  communications. 

2  Chastellain,  ii.  31  ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxxii.     When  August 
came,  Gournay  was  surrendered.   Chastellain,  ii.  68.   The  captain  was 
uncle   of  Agnes   Sorel,    and   father   of   Antoinette   of   Maignelays, 
Agnes'  successor  in  the  royal  favor.   Vallet  de  V.,  Charles  VII.,  iii. 
243. 


210  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

As  soon  as  he  had  come  to  terms  with  the  captain  of 
Gournay,  the  duke  ascended  the  west  bank  of  the  Oise  to 
Noyon,  a  town  faithful  to  his  party.  His  plans  had  been 
slightly  disarranged  by  the  sudden  inroad  of  Robert  of 
Commercy,  the  freebooting  lord  who  used  to  take  black- 
mail of  the  peasants  of  Domremy.  At  this  moment 
Robert  called  himself  loyal  to  Charles,  but  his  raid  ac- 
complished nothing,  save,  perhaps,  easier  terms  for  the 
garrison  of  Gournay.  He  retreated,  even  before  Philip 
could  get  at  him,  leaving  the  duke  free  to  carry  out  his 
operations  against  Choisy.1  After  a  few  days  spent  in 
Noyon,  about  May  8  Philip  sat  down  before  the  place. 

Though  the  duke  had  been  arming  openly  for  a  month 
or  more,  yet,  until  the  siege  of  Choisy  was  formed,  the 
French  seem  to  have  done  nothing;  perhaps  they  had 
been  trusting  in  Charles's  often  repeated  promises  to  lead 
an  army  to  their  assistance.  The  actual  appearance  of 
the  duke  within  two  or  three  miles  of  Compiegne  at  last 
May  13-  aroused  them,  and  about  May  13  the  principal 
17, 1430.  I^nch  leaders  met  hastily  in  the  city,  being 
accompanied  by  a  considerable  body  of  soldiers,  though 
their  force  was  greatly  inferior  to  that  of  the  duke.  The 
archbishop  was  present,  La  Tremoille's  delegate  in  the 
government  of  northern  France.  With  him  were  the  count 
of  Vendome,  who  had  the  military  command;  Pothon 
of  Saintrailles,  a  distinguished  French  soldier,  who  had 
lately  won  honor  in  tilting  with  the  Burgundians  at  Arras ; 
and  many  other  captains.  Joan  heard  at  Lagny  of  the 
movements  of  Duke  Philip,  and  came  at  once  to  Com- 
piegne. She  was  honorably  received  by  the  city,  and 
was  offered  presents  of  wine  like  those  given  to  Vendome 
and  the  archbishop.2 

1  Chastellain,ii.  31, 33,36;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chaps.  Ixxxii.,  Ixxxiii. 

2  Sorel,  145  ;  P.  iv.  260.     Two  dates  in  the  last  campaign  of  Joan 
are  fixed.     She  was    at  Compiegne    from  May  14  (probably  from 
May  13)  to  May  18,  and  she  reentered  the  city  early  on  the  morn- 


COMPIEGNE.  211 

A  council  of  war  was  held.  To  march  directly  against 
the  duke  was  out  of  the  question,  partly  by  reason  of 
his  superior  numbers,  and  partly  because  his  camp  was 
protected  from  the  French  by  the  Aisne.  They  could 
not  pass  this  river  at  Choisy  itself,  because  the  bridge 
either  had  been  broken  down,  or  else  was  commanded  by 
the  duke's  forces.  There  was  no  other  bridge  over  the 

ing  of  May  23.  See  Sorel,  145.  There  is  no  evidence  that  she 
was  at  Compiegne  in  1430  before  May  13,  and  this  is  unlikely,  for 
the  capture  of  Franquet,  near  Lagny,  was  not  earlier  than  the  last 
days  of  April,  and  his  trial  lasted  a  fortnight,  which  would  bring  his 
execution  not  before  May  10,  up  to  which  date  Joan  was  probably 
in  Lagny.  She  left  Lagny,  therefore,  not  earlier  than  May  10, 
reached  Compiegne  May  13,  left  it  May  18,  passed  the  night  of 
the  18th  near  Soissons,  and  on  the  afternoon  of  the  22d  left  Crdpy 
for  Compiegne.  The  battle  of  Pont  1'Eveque  was  fought  before 
the  surrender  of  Choisy.  The  surrender  could  not  well  have  taken 
place  before  May  18,  on  which  day  the  French  army  marched  on 
Soissons  ;  nor  after  May  20,  since  by  May  23  the  siege  of  Com- 
piegne was  already  formed.  Philip  lay  before  Choisy  on  May  10 
(Chastellain,  ii.  38,  n.),  and  was  there  about  ten  days.  Probably 
Choisy  surrendered  as  soon  as  Louis  of  Flavy  learned  the  failure  of 
the  French  army  to  pass  the  Aisne  at  Soissons.  The  battle  of  Pont 
1'Eveque,  therefore,  was  fought  before  May  20.  But  it  is  impossible 
that  Joan,  who  spent  the  morning  of  May  19  before  Soissons,  should 
have  returned  to  Compiegne  that  very  day,  should  have  fought  the 
battle  of  Pont  1'Eveque  on  the  following  morning,  should  have  left 
the  city  at  once,  just  as  Choisy  was  surrendering,  and  within  two 
days,  on  May  22,  should  have  again  started  for  the  place.  Plainly 
the  battle  was  fought  during  Joan's  first  stay  in  Compiegne,  May 
13-18,  probably  on  the  morning  of  the  16th  or  of  the  17th.  In  sup- 
posing that  the  battle  was  fought  after  the  failure  before  Soissons, 
May  18-19,  M.  Sorel  has  not  studied  the  dates  with  sufficient  care,  as 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  while  he  supposes  the  battle  was  fought  to 
succor  Choisy,  he  yet  puts  the  surrender  of  that  place  May  15  (see 
Sorel,  159),  three  days  before  the  march  on  Soissons,  and,  therefore, 
according  to  him,  four  or  five  days  before  the  battle.  The  anonymous 
chronicler  in  Rev.  Hist.,  t.  xix.  82,  puts  the  surrender  of  Choisy  on 
May  16,  and  the  formation  of  the  siege  of  Compiegne  May  21,  but 
the  first  date  is  too  early.  The  same  writer  puts  Joan's  capture  on 
May  27. 


212  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Aisne  nearer  than  Soissons,  some  twenty  miles  up  the 
river  and  east  of  Compiegne.  In  one  respect,  however, 
Philip's  position  was  weak.  To  get  at  Choisy,  he  had 
had  to  pass  the  Oise  at  Pont  1'Eveque,  near  Noyon,  and 
the  bridge  of  Pont  1'Eveque  was  his  only  means  of  com- 
munication with  his  base  of  supplies  and  with  the  country 
which  he  owned.1  If  the  French  could  seize  and  hold 
this  bridge,  he  would  be  compelled  either  to  fight  his  way 
across  an  unfordable  river,  or  to  make  a  long  retreat 
through  a  hostile  country.  The  duke  had  recognized  the 
importance  of  the  bridge,  and  had  intrusted  its  defense 
to  two  English  captains,  Montgomery  and  Stewart.2 

The  bridge  was  chosen  by  the  French  as  the  object  of 
their  attack.  By  night,  with  about  two  thousand  sol- 
diers, Joan  and  Saintrailles  crossed  the  Oise  at  Com- 
piegne, and  rode  up  its  west  bank,  being  protected  by  the 
river  from  the  duke's  army,  which  lay  on  the  east  bank 
about  Choisy.  Just  before  sunrise  the  French  reached 
Pont  1'Eveque  and  fell  upon  the  English.  These  were 
completely  surprised,  as  most  of  them  were  asleep  and 
the  sentries  had  kept  poor  watch ;  before  they  could  form 
in  order,  the  French  were  among  them,  striking  right 
and  left,  and  killing  many.  Despite  the  confusion,  how- 
ever, the  English  fought  bravely,  and  held  out  until  Bur- 
gundian  reinforcements  were  brought  up  from  Noyon. 
The  contest  was  then  more  equal,  and  the  French,  seeing 
that  their  unexpected  attack  had  not  secured  them  a 
victory,  and  fearing  lest  the  duke  should  send  further 
reinforcements  from  his  camp  before  Choisy,  drew  off 
in  good  order.  Their  enemies  had  no  intention  of  fol- 
lowing them,  and  the  Anglo-Burgundian  losses  were  fully 
equal  to  the  French;  but  the  object  of  the  expedition 

1  There  may   have   been  a    bridge  over   the  Oise  at  Ourscamp, 
below  Pont  1'Eveque,  but  probably  it  was  not  much  used,  if  it  existed. 
See  Sorel,  171;  St.  Remy,  ch.  clviii.;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxxiii. 

2  Chastellain,  ii.  36. 


COMPIEGNE.  213 

had  failed  completely,  and  the  battle  of  Pont  1'Eveque 
was  therefore  a  decided  French  defeat.1  Joan  had  done 
what  she  could  for  French  success,  but  the  expedition 
had  been  none  of  her  planning.  As  the  time  of  her  cap- 
tivity drew  near,  she  followed  more  closely  the  advice 
of  the  captains,  fearing,  probably,  to  make  herself  re- 
sponsible for  some  disaster  to  the  French  arms. 

The  battle  of  Pont  1'Eveque  was  fought  on  May  16 
or  17.  For  more  than  a  week  Choisy  had  been  battered 
by  the  duke's  artillery;  every  day  its  condition  became 
more  critical,  and  the  French  planned  a  second  attempt 
to  relieve  it.  They  had  failed  to  turn  Philip's  position 
by  the  west ;  they  would  now  do  so  by  the  east.  On  May 
18  the  army  left  Compiegne  with  the  archbishop,  Joan, 
Vendome,  and  the  rest,  and  marched  up  the  Mayis- 
south  bank  of  the  Aisne  to  Soissons,  where  was  22j  1430> 
the  nearest  bridge  over  that  river.  Once  across  the 
Aisne,  they  could  attack  Philip,  or,  if  they  preferred, 
could  threaten  his  communications  without  actually  fight- 
ing a  battle.  Before  nightfall  they  reached  Soissons. 
The  officer  in  command  of  the  place,  being  bribed  by  the 
duke,  who  was  negotiating  for  its  surrender,  refused  to 
admit  the  army,  and  persuaded  the  citizens  to  join  in  his 
resistance  by  telling  them  that  the  French  wished  to 
quarter  a  garrison  upon  the  place.  This  was  a  calamity 
greatly  dreaded  by  all  respectable  cities,  and  the  deluded 
people,  though  loyal  after  their  fashion,  took  sides  with 
the  captain.  After  much  parleying,  he  was  induced  to 
admit  the  archbishop,  Joan,  and  Vendome  with  a  very 
small  escort,  but  the  army  had  to  sleep  in  the  fields. 
When  morning  came,  the  captain  of  Soissons  was  still 
obdurate;  the  army  could  not  cross  the  Aisne  except  by 
entering  the  city,  and  its  leaders  were  at  their  wits'  end. 
Vendome,  as  the  king's  lieutenant,  had  the  right,  of 

1  P.  iv.  397,  Monstrelet  ;  437,  St.  Remy  ;  Chastellain,  ii.  37.     See 
P.  i.  147,  J.'s  test.;  Sorel,  152  et  seq. 


214  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

course,  to  enter  Soissons  and  to  command  its  captain,  but 
in  the  feeble  misgovernment  of  Charles  VII.  no  one 
obeyed  his  superior  officer  unless  obedience  was  agreeable 
or  enforced,  and  even  the  duke  of  Burgundy  sometimes 
found  the  gates  of  his  cities  closed  against  his  troops. 

In  spite  of  the  obstinacy  of  Soissons,  it  is  probable 
that  the  French  army  would  have  found  some  way  across 
the  Aisne  if  it  had  been  heartily  set  upon  the  attempt. 
Except  Joan,  however,  no  one  cared  much  about  fight- 
ing; the  defeat  at  Pont  1'Eveque  and  the  disaffection  of 
the  men  of  Soissons  had  cooled  the  ardor  of  the  captains. 
These  left  the  north  of  France,  accordingly,  "because 
they  found  no  means  of  living  off  the  country,  and  also 
because  they  were  great  lords,  accompanied  by  many 
men  at  arms,  who  could  not  live  in  the  said  city  of 
Compiegne,  inasmuch  as  its  citizens  daily  expected  it  to 
be  besieged."  The  demoralization  of  the  French  was 
nearly  as  great,  indeed,  as  it  had  been  fourteen  months 
before.  If  the  men  of  Compiegne  could  save  themselves, 
so  much  the  better;  if  the  city  was  taken,  so  much  the 
worse.  The  French  leaders  went  to  Senlis,  a  compara- 
tively safe  place,  leaving  Compiegne  to  its  fate.  Some 
weeks  after  their  departure  from  Soissons  its  treacherous 
captain  sold  his  charge  to  the  duke  of  Burgundy,  and  the 
citizens  found  out  how  they  had  been  deceived.1 

The  final  abandonment  of  the  attempt  to  relieve  Choisy 
made  its  further  defense  quite  hopeless.  On  May  19 
or  20  its  captain,  Louis  of  Flavy,  stole  out  of  the  for- 
tress by  night  and  managed  to  get  across  the  Aisne  to 
his  brother,  the  captain  of  Compiegne.  The  rest  of  the 
garrison,  thereupon,  were  glad  to  come  to  terms  with  the 
Burgundians,  and  to  evacuate  the  place  on  being  allowed 
a  safe  retreat.  Philip  immediately  demolished  the  castle 
even  to  its  foundation,  and  then  recrossed  the  Oise.2  In 

1  P.  iv.  49,  Berri;  St.  Remy,  ch.  clx.  ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  xci.; 
Chastellain,  ii.  68. 

2  Chastellain,  ii.  68  ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxxiii. 


COMPIEGNE.  215 

order  to  carry  on  the  siege  of  Compie'gne,  he  determined 
first  to  intrench  himself  on  the  west  bank  of  the  river 
opposite  the  town,  and  then,  after  having  established  a 
bridge  across  the  Oise  and  transported  a  part  of  his 
forces  to  the  east  bank,  to  complete  a  close  blockade  of 
the  place  on  every  side.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the 
siege  of  Orleans  was  begun  in  like  manner  from  the  south 
bank  of  the  Loire  by  an  attack  on  the  Tourelles. 

The  duke  divided  his  force  into  four  parts.  The  Pic- 
ards  were  encamped  at  Margny,  directly  opposite  Com- 
piegne  and  only  half  a  mile  away;  the  Burgundians  and 
Flemings  were  at  Clairoix,  some  two  miles  above  Com- 
piegne,  under  the  command  of  John  of  Luxemburg,  count 
of  Ligny;  the  English  were  at  Venette,  a  mile  or  two 
south  of  the  town,  under  the  command  of  that  Montgom- 
ery who  had  fought  at  Pont  1'Eveque.  The  duke  him- 
self fixed  his  headquarters  at  Coudun  on  the  Aronde,1 
some  four  miles  from  Compie'gne,  where  he  could  cover 
his  communications.  He  established  these  positions  on 
May  21  or  22,  and  made  ready  for  the  siege.2 

After  the  failure  at  Soissons,  Joan  did  not  go  with  the 
archbishop  to  Senlis,  but  stopped  with  her  own  May  22, 
small  following  of  soldiers  at  Crepy.  Here  she  1430< 
heard  of  the  fall  of  Choisy  and  of  the  movements  of 
Philip.  The  famous  captains,  like  Saintrailles,  whose 
advice  of  late  she  had  been  ready  to  follow,  were  no 
longer  with  her,  but  only  one  Bartholomew  Barrette,  a 
soldier  of  no  great  reputation,  who  had  fought  against 
Franquet  at  Lagny,  and  had  about  two  hundred  men  in 
his  command.  Forced  to  choose  between  following  the 
captains  in  their  abandonment  of  Compie'gne  and  act- 
ing upon  her  own  impulse  to  fight  for  France  wherever 
help  was  most  needed,  Joan  did  not  hesitate,  though 

1  The  father  of  Agnes  Sorel  was  lord  of  Coudun.     Steenackers, 
Agnes  Sorel,  109. 

2  Sorel,  167 ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxxiii.  ;  Chastellain,  ii.  39. 


216  JOAN    OF   ABC. 

St.  John's  Day  was  only  a  month  away.  They  told  her 
that  she  had  too  few  soldiers  even  to  force  her  way 
through  the  Anglo-Burgundian  outposts,  some  of  which 
were  already  skirmishing  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Oise. 
"By  my  staff,  there  are  enough  of  us,"  she  said.  "I 
will  go  to  see  my  good  friends  at  Compiegne."  She  left 
Crepy  at  midnight,  and  reached  Compiegne  in  safety  at 
the  dawn  of  Tuesday,  May  23.  * 

An  hour  or  two  afterwards  she  went  to  mass  in  the 
May  23,  church  of  St.  James,  close  by  her  lodgings. 
1430.  Having  confessed  and  communicated,  she  took 
her  stand  by  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  church,  and  spoke 
to  some  of  the  townspeople,  and  to  a  crowd  of  children 
who  gathered  about  her.  Those  who  heard  her  used 
often  to  tell  the  story,  until,  more  than  sixty  years  after- 
wards, it  was  taken  down  from  the  lips  of  two  old  men 
who,  as  youths,  had  been  in  the  church  that  morning. 
"My  children  and  dear  friends,"  so  Joan  said,  according 
to  the  old  men's  story,  "I  tell  you  that  they  have  sold 
and  betrayed  me,  and  that  soon  I  shall  be  delivered  to 
death.  I  beg  you  to  pray  God  for  me,  since  I  shall 
never  more'  have  power  to  serve  the  king  or  the  kingdom 
of  France."2  Probably  the  story  was  colored  by  the 
happenings  of  that  afternoon.  Joan's  presentiment  could 
hardly  have  been  as  definite  as  the  story  represents  it, 
or  she  would  not  have  gone  out  to  battle  on  that  very 
day.  Beyond  doubt,  however,  she  was  sad  and  disheart- 
ened, more  for  the  cowardice  of  the  captains  who  had 
abandoned  Compiegne  than  by  reason  of  her  approach- 
ing capture.3 

\  Sorel,  333  ;  P.  iv.  32,  Cagny. 

2  P.  iv.  272.  See  Bouchart,  Chron.  Bretagne,  189.  The  story  was 
taken  down  in  1498.  One  of  the  men  is  said  to  have  been  ninety- 
eight  years  old  at  the  time,  the  other  eighty-six.  The  age  of  the 
first  was  probably  somewhat  exaggerated. 

8  P.  i.  116,  J.'s  test.  P.  iv.  438,  St.  Remy,  and  443,  Chastellaiu, 
assert  the  contrary,  but  doubtless  only  reflect  Burgundian  gossip. 


COMPIEGNE.  217 

From  dawn  until  the  middle  of  the  afternoon  Joan 
stayed  in  Compiegne,  preparing  for  the  sally  which  she 
was  to  lead.  With  whom  originated  the  idea  of  a  sally 
we  do  not  know;  it  was  not  directly  counseled  by  Joan's 
voices,  and  after  the  event  Flavy  had  no  desire  to  claim 
the  plan  as  his  own.  The  Anglo-Burgundians  were 
many  times  as  numerous  as  the  garrison,  and  the  chance 
of  a  successful  battle  was  small.  Perhaps  only  a  recon- 
noissance  was  intended,  perhaps  Flavy  wished  to  try  the 
miraculous  power  of  his  new  ally ;  it  may  be  that  Joan 
had  a  return  of  confidence  at  sight  of  the  enemy,  or  it 
may  be  that  the  nervous  strain  which  even  she  must  have 
felt  made  her  impatient  to  strike,  and  settle  her  fate. 
She  was  a  girl  but  little  over  eighteen  years  old. 

As  has  been  said,  the  besieging  forces  on  the  opposite 
bank  of  the  Oise  lay  in  three  camps,1  the  Picards  directly 
in  front  of  the  town,  the  Flemings  and  Burgundians 
above,  the  English  below.  The  French  intended  to 
strike  at  -the  centre ;  what  they  meant  to  do  afterwards  is 
not  clear.  Flavy  ordered  archers  and  men  with  arblasts 
to  take  post  in  high-sided  boats,  ranged  along  the  east 
bank  of  the  river  under  the  walls  of  the  town.  These 
men,  with  the  gunners  on  the  walls,  were  to  open  fire 
upon  the  besiegers  if  they  came  within  range,  and  to  pro- 
tect the  retreat  of  Joan's  force  in  case  of  its  repulse.2 

At  four  o'clock  or  thereabouts  in  the  long  May  after- 
noon, Joan  led  out  her  small  party.  Richly  dressed  as 
usual,  wearing  a  cloak  of  cloth  of  gold  over  her  armor, 
she  rode  her  dappled  gray  horse  through  the  gate  of  the 
city 3  and  across  the  bridge,  and  issued  from  the  boule- 
vard or  fortification  which  covered  its  western  end. 
With  her  were  about  five  hundred  soldiers.  Half  a  mile 
back  from  the  river  was  the  Picard  camp  at  Margny. 

At  once  she  led  her  men  to  the  attack.     The  Picards 

1  Beside  the  reserves  at  Coudun.  2  P.  v.  176. 

8  P.  iv.  428  ;  438,  St.  Ilemy  ;  444,  Chastellain. 


218  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

were  taken  by  surprise,  many  of  them  having  no  time 
to  seize  their  arms.  Thrown  into  confusion,  some  fled, 
others  tried  to  rally. 

The  noise  of  the  battle,  as  well  as  the  arrival  of  fugi- 
tives, soon  gave  the  alarm  to  the  other  divisions  of  the 
besiegers.  At  the  time  of  the  French  sortie,  John  of 
Luxemburg,  who  commanded  the  Flemings  at  Clairoix, 
was  riding  with  a  small  escort  to  visit  the  Picard  com- 
mander. Seeing  his  peril,  he  dashed  to  his  assistance, 
sending  back  at  the  same  time  to  Clairoix  for  reinforce- 
ments. 

At  Margny  the  fighting  went  on  with  varying  fortune, 
though  the  French  seem  to  have  had  the  best  of  it. 
Doubtless  they  were  outnumbered,  even  by  the  Picards 
alone,  but  they  made  up  for  their  weakness  in  numbers 
by  the  suddenness  of  their  attack.  It  was  otherwise 
when  Luxemburg's  soldiers  from  Clairoix  fell  upon  their 
right  flank.  The  odds  became  at  least  five  to  one  against 
Joan;  she  charged  upon  the  Burgundians  and  again  beat 
them  back,  but  the  battle  was  going  against  her,  and 
before  long  she  was  forced  toward  the  boulevard.  Her 
men  began  to  waver  and  to  cry  out  for  retreat.  Joan 
bade  them  be  quiet,  and  told  them  that,  if  they  would, 
they  might  still  win  a  victory.  Whether  she  believed 
what  she  said,  or  spoke  only  to  encourage  the  troops,  it  is 
hard  to  tell. 

While  she  was  struggling  against  the  Picards  and 
Luxemburg,  the  English  came  up  from  their  camp  at 
Venette  and  fell  upon  her  left  flank  and  rear.  The  odds 
against  her  were  become  at  least  eight  to  one,  and,  worse 
than  the  hostile  odds,  the  advancing  English  were  min- 
gled with  the  retreating  French,  so  that  the  latter  found 
it  hard  to  get  back  into  the  boulevard,  while  Flavy's 
archers  dared  not  shoot  into  the  confused  mass  of  friends 
and  foes.  Not  unnaturally  the  French  were  panic- 
stricken,  and  saved  themselves  as  best  they  might.  Al- 


COMPIEGNE.  219 

most  alone  Joan  minded  her  duty.  "Passing  the  nature 
of  woman,"  wrote  a  Burgundian  chronicler,  "she  did 
great  feats,  and  took  great  pains  to  save  her  company 
from  loss,  staying  behind  them  like  a  captain,  and  like 
the  bravest  of  the  troop."1 

As  the  fleeing  soldiers  rushed  through  the  entrance  of 
the  boulevard,  with  the  English  pressing  upon  them, 
Flavy  took  fright  for  the  safety  of  the  town.  If  once  the 
English  should  enter  the  boulevard,  it  would  be  hard  to 
keep  them  from  crossing  the  bridge  into  Compiegne  itself. 
Though  he  could  see  Joan  and  a  few  others  fighting  in 
the  rear  of  the  fugitives,  in  order  to  cover  their  escape, 
he  dared  not  wait  for  their  arrival,  but  ordered  the  bar- 
riers to  be  closed.  Perhaps  he  hoped  that  those  who 
were  shut  out  could  swim  across  the  river  to  the  boats 
stationed  along  the  city's  walls.  Some  did  so,  but  for  a 
man  in  armor  such  an  escape  was  hardly  possible,  espe- 
cially as  the  English  and  Burgundians  were  crowding 
close.  Seeing  the  barriers  shut,  and  that  she  could  not 
retreat  directly  into  Compiegne,  Joan  tried  to  cut  her 
way  through  the  Burgundians  into  the  meadows  that  bor- 
dered the  Oise  above  the  boulevard.  Even  had  she  suc- 
ceeded, she  could  hardly  have  got  clear  of  her  enemies ; 
but  she  did  not  succeed.  They  surrounded  her,  some 
snatching  at  her  clothes,  others  grasping  her  bridle-rein, 
each  one  demanding  that  she  should  give  up  herself  to 
him.  "I  have  given  myself  to  another  than  you,  and  to 
him  I  will  keep  my  oath,"  she  answered.  A  Picard 
archer,  attached  to  the  troop  of  the  bastard  of  Wandonne, 
seized  her  by  her  brilliant  cloak  and  dragged  her  from 
her  horse.  Her  squire  Aulon  and  one  or  two  others  tried 
to  remount  her,  but  they  themselves  Were  at  once  taken 
prisoners,  while  she  was  seized  by  Wandonne  himself, 
anxious  for  such  a  booty.2 

1  P.  iv.  446,  Chastellain. 

2  For  Joan's  capture  see  P.  i.  116,  J.'s  test. ;  iv.  34,  Cagny ;  92, 


220  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

As  soon  as  she  was  captured,  Joan  was  taken  to  the 
Picard  camp  at  Margny,  from  which  she  had  been  beaten 
off  only  an  hour  before.  The  battle  was  quite  over;  it 
would  have  been  folly  for  Flavy  to  sally  out  and  try  to 
retake  Joan,  while  the  Burgundians  were  not  ready  to 
follow  up  their  victory  by  an  attempt  to  storm  Com- 
pi£gne.  All  rushed  to  Margny  after  their  prisoner, 
shouting  in  three  or  four  languages  their  delight  at  their 
unexpected  success.  Philip  had  just  come  up  with  the 
reserves,  too  late  for  the  battle,  just  in  time  to  hear  the 
good  news.  He  went  at  once  to  the  place  where  Joan 
was  held,  and  spoke  with  her  for  a  little  time ;  what  they 
said,  the  Burgundian  chronicler  was  too  excited  to  re- 
member, or,  as  is  quite  probable,  did  not  care  to  repeat. 
Joan's  capture  ended  her  uncertainty,  and  relaxed  the 
strain  which  her  nerves  had  borne  for  more  than  a  month. 
Its  first  effect  may  well  have  been  to  raise  her  spirits,  and 
very  likely  she  spoke  to  the  duke  as  she  had  written  to 
him  a  year  before,  words  which  the  men  of  his  party 
would  prefer  to  forget.  It  was  growing  dark,  and  Philip 
soon  went  back  to  Coudun.  Joan  was  given  in  charge  to 
John  of  Luxemburg,  and  was  taken  to  his  quarters  for 
the  night.1 

Since  the  capture  of  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier,  Joan's 
warfare  had  been  a  failure,  broken  only  by  the  defeat  of 
Franquet  at  Lagny.  Her  voices  had  spoken  to  her  almost 
daily,  and  she  had  been  as  instant  as  ever  in  obeying 
them ;  indeed,  her  obedience  had  been  more  costly  when 
they  foretold  her  capture  than  when  they  spoke  only  of 

J.  Chartier  ;  261  ;  401,  Monstrelet ;  438,  St.  Remy  ;  444,  Chastellain  ; 
458,  Fauquemberque  ;  v.  176  ;  Quicherat,  Ap.  nouv.,  85  ;  Sorel,  191. 
There  seems  no  sufficient  reason  to  suppose  that  Flavy  betrayed 
Joan,  though  he  may  not  have  been  very  zealous  for  her  safety. 

1  P.  iv.  402,  Monstrelet  ;  447,  Chastellain.  The  latter's  account  is 
evidently  borrowed  from  that  given  by  the  former.  See,  also,  Jean 
Jouffroy,  Chron.  Belg.  ine'd.,  iii.  138 ;  Rev.  Hist.,  t.  xix.  64. 


COMPIEGNE  221 

immediate  success.  But  her  voices  did  not  make  her  a 
great  general.  Her  theory  of  war,  as  far  as  she  had  a 
theory,  consisted  only  in  seeking  out  the  enemy,  wherever 
he  might  be,  fighting  him  as  soon  as  found,  and  never 
admitting  the  possibility  of  defeat.  She  had  not  ex- 
pected that  God  would  dispense  with  the  need  of  human 
assistance.  "If  God  wills  to  free  the  French,  there  is 
no  need  of  the  soldiers  you  ask  for,"  one  of  her  examiners 
had  told  her  at  Poitiers.  "In  God's  name,"  she  had 
answered,  "the  men  at  arms  will  fight,  and  God  will 
give  the  victory."  From  St.  Loup  to  Rheims  the  men 
at  arms  had  fought,  some  of  them,  at  least,  in  God's 
name,  and  they  had  had  the  victory.  After  Rheims  they 
had  seldom  been  allowed  to  fight  either  in  God's  name  or 
in  any  other,  and  their  enemies  had  generally  gotten  the 
victory.  The  more  urgently  Joan  asked  for  men,  or 
asked  even  permission  to  go  against  the  English,  the 
more  hostile  became  La  Tremoille  and  his  friends,  through 
fear  lest  her  success  should  bring  about  their  overthrow, 
and  through  very  shame  for  their  treachery  which  her 
demands  forced  them  to  expose.  Just  after  her  capture 
the  archbishop  wrote  to  the  men  of  Rheims  to  tell  them 
the  news.  He  said  that  Joan  had  been  taken  because  she 
would  not  listen  to  reason,  but  did  everything  to  please 
herself.  A  young  shepherd  from  the  mountains  of  Ge- 
vaudan  was  come  to  the  king,  he  added,  who  professed 
quite  as  much  as  Joan  ever  had  done,  to  wit,  that  he  had 
commandment  to  go  with  the  king's  soldiers,  and  that 
without  doubt  the  English  and  Burgundians  should  be 
overthrown.  The  shepherd  declared  that  God  had  al- 
lowed Joan  to  be  taken,  so  the  archbishop  said,  because 
of  the  pride  with  which  she  was  puffed  up,  and  because 
of  the  rich  clothes  which  she  wore  :  she  had  not  done 
what  God  had  bidden  her,  but  had  done  her  own  will  in- 
stead.1 

1  P.  v.  168. 


222  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

Bather  more  than  a  year  afterward,  the  shepherd  was 
taken  prisoner,  and  was  exhibited  in  Paris  before  he  was 
dispatched,  probably  by  drowning  in  the  Seine.1  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  the  half -crazy  wretch  responsible 
for  his  words  about  Joan ;  he  merely  repeated  the  lesson 
which  the  archbishop  or  La  Tremoille  had  caused  him  to 
be  taught. 

1  P.  v.  169  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  XVH. 

NEGOTIATIONS    FOR   JOAN'S   PURCHASE. 

IN  modern  times  the  disposal  of  a  prisoner  of  war  be- 
longs to  the  nation  whose  subjects  make  the  capture.  By 
the  rules  of  war  such  a  prisoner  may  be  securely  kept 
until  peace  is  declared,1  and  thus  he  may  be  prevented 
from  doing  further  injury  to  his  captors.  Ordinarily,  he 
must  be  treated  with  no  more  harshness  than  is  needed  to 
secure  his  safe-keeping,  and  when  the  war  is  over  he  is 
freely  released.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the  rules  of  war 
were  quite  different.  A  prisoner  was  the  property  of 
his  captor,  often  very  valuable  property,  and  he  usually 
regained  his  liberty,  whether  during  the  war  or  after- 
wards, only  by  payment  of  a  ransom  agreed  upon  be- 
tween himself  and  his  owner.  In  the  mean  time  he  might 
be  bought  for  speculation,2  he  might  be  pledged  to  secure 
his  captor's  debts,  or  delivered  in  payment  of  them. 
If  he  was  the  favorite  of  his  royal  master,  or  if  his  ser- 
vices were  greatly  needed  in  war,  he  might  hope  to 
get  a  part  of  his  ransom  from  the  royal  treasury,  but,  in 
most  cases,  to  regain  his  liberty  he  must  sell  his  estates, 
or  beg  or  borrow  from  his  friends.  Until  his  ransom 
was  paid,  he  was  at  his  captor's  disposal.  Even  in  the 
Middle  Ages  it  was  considered  hardly  proper  to  maltreat 
severely  a  distinguished  prisoner,  unless  for  exceptional 
reasons,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  prisoner  owed  his  good 

1  In  most  cases,  two  nations  at  war  with  each  other  provide  for 
an  exchange  of  prisoners,  but  such  an  exchange  cannot  be  insisted 
on  as  matter  of  right. 

2  See  Quicherat,  Rodrigo  de  Villandrando,  50. 


224  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

treatment  chiefly  to  his  commercial  value.1  His  death 
was  the  destruction  of  his  captor's  property,  and  so  it 
came  to  pass  that  a  prisoner  of  war,  having  means  or 
importance,  was  usually  treated  with  far  less  rigor  and 
cruelty  than  seems  natural  to  so  harsh  and  cruel  an  age. 
A  poor  man  or  a  common  soldier  was  generally  killed 
outright,  or,  if  he  were  taken  near  his  home,  was  some- 
times tortured  on  the  spot,  until  his  family  paid  for  his 
life  whatever  they  had. 

Five  persons  were  concerned  in  Joan  of  Arc  as  a  pris- 
oner :  the  Picard  archer,  who  pulled  her  from  her  horse ; 
Lionel  of  Wandonne,  in  whose  troop  the  archer  served; 
John  of  Luxemburg,  commanding  the  corps  in  which 
Lionel  was  a  captain;  Philip  of  Burgundy,  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  army;  and  Henry  VI.,  in  whose  name  the 
siege  of  Compiegne  was  carried  on. 

The  Picard  archer  had  no  financial  interest  in  the  mat- 
ter; whatever  he  did  was  done  for  his  captain's  hand. 
Just  what  was  the  relation  between  Wandonne  and  Luxem- 
burg is  not  known,  but  Joan  seems  in  some  way  to  have 
become  the  property  of  them  both.  Very  likely  there 
was  a  written  contract  between  them,  providing  for  the 
division  of  the  ransom  which  might  be  exacted  from  any 
prisoner.  Such  contracts  were  common.2 

John  of  Luxemburg  and  Lionel  of  Wandonne  were 
men  of  the  age.  Luxemburg  was  the  younger  son  of  a 
noble  house,  who  had  inherited  a  part  of  the  ancestral 
estate,  and  by  his  ability  had  largely  increased  his  pos- 
sessions. He  was  fond  of  fighting,  and  had  lost  an  eye 
in  battle;  was  a  skillful  commander  and  a  wary  politi- 
cian, not  quite  so  fickle  and  faithless,  perhaps,  as  some 
of  his  neighbors.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
was  cruel  for  cruelty's  sake,  but  he  was  altogether  ruth- 

1  See  Beaurepaire,  RechercJies  sur  le  proces  de  condamnation  de  /., 
29. 

2  See  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  44. 


NEGOTIATIONS   FOR   JOAN'S   PURCHASE.  225 

less  and  unscrupulous,  ready  to  hang  a  captured  garrison 
without  mercy,  or  to  kill  a  prisoner,  if  his  interests  re- 
quired it.  At  this  time  he  was  about  forty  years  old.1 

The  bastard  of  Wandonne  held  a  much  lower  social 
position.  Illegitimate  sons  of  princely  families,  like  the 
Bastard  of  Orleans  or  the  Great  Bastard  of  Burgundy, 
were  favored  men,  but  Lionel's  father  was  himself  ob- 
scure. The  young  man  had  long  followed  John  of  Lux- 
emburg, and  had  been  advanced  by  his  master.  Seven 
years  before,  he  had  distinguished  himself  in  a  tourna- 
ment with  one  of  the  best  French  knights,  both  jousting 
and  fighting  on  foot  with  a  battle-axe.  Some  time  after- 
wards, in  a  real  battle,  he  had  been  severely  wounded  by 
the  thrust  of  a  lance,  and  so  was  lame  of  one  arm.  He 
was  a  hard-fighting  soldier,  not  quite  a  brigand,  inasmuch 
as  he  always  followed  Luxemburg's  fortunes.2 

For  two  or  three  days  Joan  was  kept  at  Clairoix  in 
Luxemburg's  quarters.3     The  situation  was  too  exposed 
for  safety,  however;  the  garrison  might  make 
another  sortie,  or  Joan  might  escape.    Wandonne   June, 
was  a  poor  man,  and  had  no  place  fit  for  keep-   ]  l30' 
ing  so  important  a  prisoner.    Luxemburg  was  a  great  lord 
with  many  castles.     The  two  captors  apparently  were  well 
agreed;  Joan  was  sent  under  strong  escort  some  twenty 
miles  northeast  of  Compidgne  to  Beaulieu,  a  stronghold 
belonging  to  Luxemburg  of  which  Lionel  seems  to  have 

1  Vallet  de  Viriville,  ii.  165  ;  Gomart,  /.  au  chateau  de  Beaurevoir, 
185  ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  chaps,  xv.,  exi.  ;  and  see  Monstrelet  gener- 
ally, as  he  was  in  Luxemburg's  service.     One  of  John's  prisoners  had 
broken  parole.     The  man's  mother  offered  6,000  crowns  ransom,  but 
Luxemburg  cut  off  the  delinquent's  head  and  carried  it  on  a  spear  to 
the  door  where  the  mother  was  waiting  for  her  son.     Livre  Trahi- 
sons,  175. 

2  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  viii.  ;  Fenin,  ann.  1423. 

8  On  May  26  Luxemburg  moved  from  Clairoix  to  Margny.  Mon- 
strelet, Bk.  II.  ch.  Ixxxviii.  This  may  have  been  the  occasion  of 
sending  Joan  away,  as  Margny  was  even  more  exposed  than  Clairoix 
to  an  attack  from  Compiegne. 


226  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

been  captain;  thus  the  rights  of  all  parties  were  secured.1 
The  life  of  a  prisoner  is  not  pleasant,  and  brutal  soldiers 
can  hardly  have  had  much  respect  for  a  girl  whom  they 
believed  to  be  an  unsexed  witch ;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  at  Beaulieu  Joan  was  treated  with  any 
especial  cruelty.  Undoubtedly  she  was  a  rich  prize,  and 
both  her  captors  believed  themselves  in  luck.2 

The  mediaeval  method  of  treating  prisoners  of  war 
had  one  marked  inconvenience,  well  illustrated  by  the 
case  of  Joan  of  Arc.  Luxemburg  and  Wandonne  both 
looked  on  her  simply  as  a  means  of  making  money.  That 
they  might  get  their  money  she  must  be  freed,  and  so 
allowed  to  rejoin  the  French  forces  in  the  field.  This 
might  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  a  soldier,  or  even  to 
a  general,  but  it  was  a  serious  matter  to  the  English,  who 
had  suffered  terribly  from  her  prowess  in  the  year  just 
passed.  For  them  it  was  necessary  at  all  hazards  to  pre- 
vent her  ransom,  and  no  time  was  to  be  lost,  as  it  seemed 
certain  that  Charles  VII.  would  act  at  once. 

To  everybody  the  capture  of  Joan  was  a  matter  of 
interest,  and  on  the  evening  of  her  capture  the  duke  of 
Burgundy  wrote  to  the  men  of  St.  Quentin  and  told  them 
the  great  news,  which  exposed,  he  said,  the  mistaken 
and  foolish  belief  of  all  those  who  had  put  faith  in  Joan's 
deeds.3  That  night  or  the  next  morning,  John  of  Lux- 
emburg wrote  to  his  brother  Louis,  bishop  of  Therouamie 
and  chancellor  of  France  for  Henry  VI.4  The  bishop 
was  in  Paris,  the  regent  Bedford  at  Rouen,  but  the  former 
did  not  wait  for  orders.  He  saw  at  once  the  danger  of 
Joan's  release,  and  acted  within  four  and  twenty  hours. 

To  ask  simply  that  Joan  should  not  be  held  to  ransom, 

1  P.  iv.  402,  Monstrelet ;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  cclii.     See  Lafons 
de  Me*licocq,  Une  cite  picarde  au  moyen  age,  105. 

2  Apparently  she  was  attended  by  Aulon,  her  squire.     P.  iv.  35, 
Cagny. 

8  P.  v.  166.  4  P.  iv.  458. 


NEGOTIATIONS   FOR   JOAN'S   PURCHASE.  227 

would  be  asking  her  captors  to  disregard  almost  universal 
custom.  Some  reason  must  be  found  for  treating  her 
differently  from  other  prisoners,  and  such  a  reason  was 
not  far  to  seek.  The  authorities  of  the  University  of 
Paris,  most  of  them  Burgundian  partisans,  held  confer- 
ence with  the  vicar-general  of  the  inquisitor  of  France, 
and  a  letter  was  sent  off  to  Philip  on  May  26,  only  three 
days  after  Joan's  capture.  Written  in  the  name  of  the 
vicar-general,  it  reminded  the  duke  that  all  loyal  Chris- 
tian princes  were  bound  to  root  out  heresy,  and  to  save 
simple  Christian  folk  from  scandal.  It  went  on  to  re- 
hearse that  a  certain  woman  named  Joan,  called  by  the 
enemies  of  the  realm  the  Maid,  had  brought  scandal  upon 
the  honor  of  God  and  upon  holy  religion,  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  souls  of  many  simple  Christians.  This  woman 
was  in  the  duke's  hands,  or  in  the  hands  of  his  vassals. 
Wherefore  the  vicar-general  begged  the  duke  and  the 
vassals  aforesaid,  acting  as  true  guardians  of  the  faith 
and  defenders  of  God's  honor,  to  send  this  Joan  to  him 
without  delay.  The  letter  concluded  with  a  formal  sum- 
mons to  all  persons  concerned,  to  bring  Joan  before  the 
inquisitor  and  the  University  of  Paris.1 

In  treating  of  the  trial  and  condemnation  of  Joan,  it 
is  customary  to  speak  of  the  accusation  of  witchcraft 
brought  against  her  as  if  it  had*  been  a  mere  pretext, 
invented  to  accomplish  her  ruin.  To  suppose  this,  how- 
ever, is  to  misconceive  utterly  thpe  minds  of  men  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  and  to  attribute  to  them  the  knowledge 
of  the  nineteenth.  To  Joan's  contemporaries,  to  Joan 
herself,  witchcraft  was  a  crime  chiite  as  real  as  larceny, 
and,  being  real,  naturally  much  more  dangerous  to  the 
community,  and  especially  hateful  to  God.  This  no  one 
thought  of  doubting.  It  might  be  difficult  to  persuade  a 
very  sensible  man  of  the  guilt  of  a  particular  person 
accused,  and  he  might  treat  a  given  case  as  one  of  insan- 

1  P.  i.  12. 


228  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

ity  or  of  imposture,  while  a  credulous  man  would  find 
witches  at  every  turn ;  both  believed  with  equal  assurance 
that  witchcraft  was  a  reality. 

To  an  Englishman  or  to  a  Burgundian  partisan  the 
evidence  of  witchcraft  in  Joan's  case  was  overwhelming, 
and  one  of  her  enemies  could  hardly  have  thought  her 
innocent.  She  had  done  great  things,  deeds  too  marvel- 
ous for  the  work  of  a  simple  peasant  girl.  All  Europe 
was  full  of  the  wildest  legends  about  her,  and  the  Eng- 
lish soldiers  had  seen  with  their  own  eyes  quite  enough 
to  make  these  legends  probable.  Plainly  she  had  gained 
her  victories  by  the  aid  either  of  God  or  of  the  Devil. 
No  man  is  willing  to  believe  that  God  is  against  him, 
and  so  Joan's  enemies  set  down  her  supernatural  helper 
as  the  Devil  without  possibility  of  doubt.  How  much 
their  belief  was  changed  as  they  came  to  know  her  better, 
we  shall  consider  hereafter,  but,  without  seeing  her,  every 
one  of  them  presumed,  and  presumed  reasonably,  that 
she  was  a  witch. 

Witch  or  no  witch,  neither  Luxemburg  nor  Wandonne 
proposed  to  sell  her  except  at  a  high  price.  The  English 
council  could  hardly  have  expected  that  she  should  be 
presented  to  them  as  a  gift,  and  the  inquisitor's  letter  to 
Philip  probably  was  not  intended  to  accomplish  the 
delivery  of  Joan  to  the  English,  but  only  to  prevent  her 
captors  from  putting  her  to  ransom  before  the  English 
had  time  to  interfere.  So  far  as  is  known,  no  particular 
attention  was  paid  to  the  inquisitor's  summons,  and  the 
agents  of  Henry  VI.  speedily  began  negotiations  on  a 
more  substantial  basis. 

In  the  council  which  represented  Henry  in  France 
were  men  of  two  sorts.  There  were  Englishmen,  trying 
to  extend  English  power,  sturdy  patriots,  some  of  them, 
even  if  mistaken  ones.  There  were  Frenchmen,  mem- 
bers of  the  old  Burgundian  political  party,  who  hated  an 
Armagnac  worse  than  they  could  possibly  hate  any  for- 


NEGOTIATIONS   FOR   JOAN'S   PURCHASE.  229 

eigner.  Throughout  France  party  feeling  had  greatly 
abated,  as  has  been  said  already,  and  most  Frenchmen 
were  coming  to  see  that  English  rule  was  an  impossibility, 
and  that  the  hope  of  the  country  lay  with  the  loyalists. 
The  plainer  this  became,  the  more  closely  drew  together 
the  little  band  of  anti-Arrnagnac  politicians,  the  fierce 
and  bitter  defenders  of  a  lost  cause.  Except  for  the 
savage  mob  of  Paris,  they  had  no  popular  support,  and 
even  the  mob  of  Paris  was  beginning  to  waver.  When 
an  emissary  was  needed  to  negotiate  for  the  purchase  of 
Joan,  he  was  naturally  chosen,  not  from  the  English,  but 
from  this  band  of  Anglo-Burgundian  Frenchmen. 

Peter  Cauchon  was  born  in  Champagne  of  a  family 
without  particular  distinction.  He  had  been  a  hard  stu- 
dent in  the  University  of  Paris,  and  had  there  taken  his 
degree  in  arts  and  canon  law.  Having  gained  the  re- 
spect of  its  authorities,  he  was  named  its  Rector  as  early 
as  1403.  A  priest  of  learning,  energy,  and  ability,  as 
well  as  of  correct  life,  he  had  filled  important  positions 
for  many  years.  Firmly  attached  to  the  Burgundian 
party,  he  had  been  one  of  the  commission  appointed  in 
1413  to  enforce  the  laws  against  the  Armagnacs,  and 
he  had  incited  the  Parisian  mob  to  slaughter  them.  He 
had,  therefore,  been  banished  when  the  Armagnacs  re- 
gained power,  but  had  been  protected  both  by  John  the 
Fearless  and  by  Philip  the  Good,  and  by  the  former  had 
been  sent  to  the  council  of  Constance,  there  to  defend 
the  righteousness  of  his  patron's  murder  of  the  duke  of 
Orleans.  In  time  he  rose  to  higher  offices,  and  became 
vidame  of  Chartres  and  master  of  the  court  of  requests. 
After  the  Burgundians  had  retaken  Paris,  he  again  stood 
high  in  the  university,  represented  it  at  court,  and  was 
named  its  Conservator.  Though  a  politician  by  choice, 
he  received  ecclesiastical  preferment,  being  helped  by 
Philip  to  the  bishopric  of  Beauvais,  and  thus  becoming 
one  of  the  spiritual  peers  of  France.  Since  the  treaty  of 


230  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Troyes,  without  neglecting  his  Burgundian  friends,  he 
had  devoted  himself  especially  to  the  English,  and  had 
labored  incessantly  for  Henry  VI.  in  his  council  and  else- 
where. When  Charles  came  to  northern  France  in  the 
summer  of  1429,  the  people  of  Beauvais,  Cauchon's  epis- 
copal city,  rose  against  him  and  drove  him  out.1  Thus 
humiliated,  he  sought  the  vacant  archbishopric  of  Kouen, 
and  had  persuaded  the  privy  council  of  England  to  rec- 
ommend him  for  the  place  to  the  court  of  Rome.  At  the 
time  of  Joan's  capture,  he  was  probably  between  fifty 
and  sixty  years  old.2 

The  character  of  Cauchon  is  manifested  plainly  by  his 
career.  Thoroughly  worldly,  a  bitter  partisan,  he  hated 
the  followers  of  Charles  VII.  with  a  pitiless  hatred,  while 
he  owed  Joan  in  particular  a  hearty  grudge  for  the  loss 
of  his  diocese  and  its  revenues.  It  needs  no  argument  to 
prove  that  his  belief  in  her  possession  by  the  Devil  was 
sincere ;  and  his  tireless  energy  and  eminent  respectabil- 
ity made  him  a  most  suitable  agent  to  treat  for  her  sur- 
render to  the  English. 

Cauchon  was  a  man  of  the  world,  and  therefore  not 
likely  to  believe  that  Luxemburg  and  Wandonne  would 
give  up  their  prisoner,  even  if  a  witch,  without  the  pay- 
ment of  a  good  sum  of  money.  Before  long,  at  any  rate, 
he  began  to  bid  for  her  purchase,  just  as  other  prisoners 
were  bid  for  at  that  time,  and  just  as  stocks  and  houses 
are  bid  for  to-day.  Although  he  was  offering  money, 
he  still  laid  stress  upon  Joan's  witchcraft  and  heresy, 
thus  seeking  to  cheapen  the  wares  he  was  buying.  Econ- 
omy was  not  his  only  motive.  While  the  charges  made 

1  The  people  of  Beauvais  inserted  in  their  litany  this  suffrage : 
"  From  the  cruelty  of  the  English,  Good  Lord  deliver  us."     Peche- 
nard,  Jean  Juvenal,  156. 

2  Cte.  de  Marsy,  Pierre  Cauchon  •  Beaurepaire,  Notes  sur  les  juges, 
etc.,  duproces  de  J.,  12  ;  Coville,  Les  Cabochiens,  149,  152,  188,  192, 
215, 386,  398, 404;  Monstrelet,  Bk.  I.  ch.  ccxliii.;  Vallet  de  V.,  Charles 
VII.,  i.  313;  Chapotin,  J.  et  les  Dominicains,  103. 


NEGOTIATIONS   FOR   JOAN'S   PURCHASE.  231 

against  Joan,  however  sincerely  believed,  may  at  first 
have  been  nothing  more  than  a  pretext  to  get  her  into  the 
hands  of  the  English  without  paying  full  price  for  her, 
they  soon  had  an  additional  purpose.  If  the  English 
should  secure  her  as  an  ordinary  prisoner  of  war,  she 
would  be  to  them  a  constant  embarrassment.  They  them- 
selves could  hardly  refuse  a  reasonable  offer  for  her  ran- 
som, and  her  name,  though  she  were  in  captivity,  might 
still  arouse  the  enthusiasm  of  the  French  soldiers.  The 
best  thing  the  English  could  do  with  Joan  was  to  dis- 
credit her.  Believing  her  to  be  a  witch,  they  wished  to 
exhibit  her  as  a  witch  to  all  Europe,  and  so  discredit  not 
only  Joan  herself,  but  the  king  and  the  cause  she  had 
served.  The  plan  of  trying  Joan  was  formed  very  soon 
after  her  capture,  though  its  details  were  not  fixed  until 
months  afterwards.  In  the  plan  Cauchon  had  a  peculiar 
interest.  Joan  had  been  taken  within  the  limits  of  his 
diocese,  and  might  be  tried  before  his  tribunal.  In  every 
way  such  a  proceeding  would  be  agreeable  to  him.  He 
was  ambitious  and  vindictive;  by  sitting  as  judge  in  one 
of  the  great  trials  of  the  age,  he  would  both  gain  renown 
and  gratify  his  wish  for  political  and  personal  revenge. 
He  seems  to  have  entered  heartily  into  the  plans  of  his 
employers,  having  obtained,  before  beginning  his  labors, 
the  promise  of  ample  wages  while  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness.1 

About  July  12  he    set    out  from  Paris  for  Philip's 
headquarters,  being  well   supplied   with   letters  j^ 
to  the  duke  and  Luxemburg.     The  University  of   143°- 
Paris  wrote  to  Philip,  calling  his  attention  to  the  fact 
that  its  former  letters  to  him  still  remained  unanswered, 
which  neglect  in  correspondence  the  authorities  of  the 
university    attributed  to  the  deceitful  wiles  of  the  Evil 
One,  and  to  the  subtlety  of  the  duke's  enemies,  who  were 
craftily  laboring   to   get  Joan  out  of   his  hands.     The 
1  P.  v.  194  ;  Beaurepaire,  Recherches  sur  le  proces  de  J.,  16. 


232  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

university  prayed  God  that  this  might  not  happen,  for 
the  true  faith  had  never  received  so  great  a  hurt,  nor 
within  the  memory  of  man  had  so  mighty  a  danger  and 
injury  come  to  the  realm,  as  would  arise  from  her  es- 
cape by  these  damnable  means.  After  complimenting 
the  religious  zeal  of  Philip  and  his  ancestors,  the  letter 
begged  him  to  deliver  Joan  either  to  the  inquisitor  or  to 
the  bearer,  the  Reverend  Father  in  God,  my  Lord  Bishop 
of  Beauvais,  and  so  to  act  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  true  faith,  the  profit  of  all  good  Catho- 
lics, the  welfare  of  the  realm,  and  the  duke's  own  honor.1 

The  letter  of  the  university  to  John  of  Luxemburg 
was  much  like  that  sent  to  Philip.  The  count  was 
thanked  for  his  great  service  in  taking  Joan,  and  was 
reminded  of  his  knightly  oath  to  defend  God's  honor,  the 
Catholic  faith,  and  Holy  Church.  He,  too,  was  warned 
that  his  enemies  were  trying  to  deliver  Joan  by  craft  and, 
which  would  be  still  more  shameful,  by  way  of  purchase 
or  ransom.  The  danger  of  delay  was  pointed  out,  and 
Luxemburg  was  summoned  to  deliver  her  instantly  to  the 
inquisitor  or  to  the  bishop,  in  order  that  God  might  be 
pleased  and  the  people  be  duly  edified.2 

These  pious  admonitions  were  meant  to  add  weight  to 
the  formal  written  demand  made  upon  Philip,  Luxem- 
burg and  Wandonne  by  Cauchon  himself.  This  docu- 
ment made  slight  mention  of  the  nobility  of  Joan's  cap- 
tors; in  pretty  straightforward  fashion  the  bishop  made 
his  offer.  In  King  Henry's  name  and  in  his  own,  he 
demanded  that  the  woman,  commonly  called  Joan  the 
Maid,  be  delivered  up  to  the  king,  so  that  she  might  be 
tried  by  the  church  for  witchcraft  and  idolatry.  Con- 
sidering the  charges  made  against  her,  she  ought  not  to  be 
accounted  a  prisoner  of  war,  the  letter  continued,  yet  as 

1  P.  i.  8. 

2  P.  i.  10.     It  is  stated  that  this  letter  bore  date  July  14,  but  prob- 
ably that  was  the  date  pf  its  delivery  to  Luxemburg.     See  P.  i.  14. 


NEGOTIATIONS   FOR  JOAN'S  PURCHASE.  233 

a  recompense  to  those  who  had  taken  her  Henry  VI. 
would  freely  give  six  thousand  pounds,  and  an  annuity  to 
Wandonne  of  two  or  three  hundred  besides.  So  eager 
was  Cauchon,  or  his  English  employer,  that  he  did  not 
wait  to  find  out  whether  his  terms  were  accepted  or  not ; 
in  another  paragraph  of  the  same  document  he  made 
a  larger  offer.  By  the  custom  of  France,  if  a  king  or 
prince  was  made  prisoner,  the  sovereign  whose  soldiers 
had  captured  him  could  buy  him  for  the  fixed  sum  of  ten 
thousand  pounds.  If  Luxemburg  and  the  rest  were  not 
content  with  the  first  offer,  so  Cauchon's  letter  ran,  then, 
although  Joan's  capture  was  not  like  the  capture  of  a 
king  or  prince,  yet  in  order  to  buy  her  the  bishop  was 
willing  to  give  them  proper  security  for  the  ten  thousand 
pounds.  All  these  letters  were  publicly  handed  over  to 
the  duke  and  to  Luxemburg  in  the  presence  of  many 
nobles  and  officers,  and  the  notary  whom  Cauchon  had 
brought  with  him  from  Paris  made  due  record  of  the 
fact.1  It  seems  that  no  definite  answer  was  made  at  the 
time  ;  John  of  Luxemburg  may  have  been  willing  to  sell 
Joan  for  ten  thousand  pounds,  but  he  wished  to  see  the 
ready  money. 

Some  of  the  letters  to  Philip  and  Luxemburg  men- 
tioned efforts  macfe  by  the  French  to  ransom  Joan.  The 
writers  undoubtedly  believed  that  the  efforts  had  been 
made,  as  they  were  reasonably  to  be  expected  from  the 
French  court ;  nevertheless,  the  fear  of  ransom  was  quite 
uncalled  for.  Neither  the  king  nor  his  council,  nor  any 
of  his  captains,  so  far  as  can  be  discovered,  ever  made 
the  slightest  attempt  to  save  her.  She  had,  of  course,  no 
money  of  her  own ;  poor  as  Charles  was,  he  used  to  spend 
on  his  favorites  many  times  the  sum  needed  to  ransom 
her,  yet  he  never  offered  a  pound.  The  plans  of  the  Eng- 
lish soon  became  evident ;  they  never  pretended  that  they 
meant  to  treat  Joan  as  a  prisoner  of  war,  yet  the  French 
1  P.  i.  13, 14. 


234  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

authorities  did  not  even  protest  against  her  treatment. 
During  the  months  that  her  trial  lasted,  they  kept  quiet. 
English  prisoners  were  in  their  hands  and  retaliation  was 
not  impossible,  yet  they  did  not  even  threaten  it.1  From  the 
time  of  her  capture  to  her  death,  there  came  to  Joan  from 
the  king  she  had  crowned,  from  the  council  whose  orders 
she  had  obeyed,  and  from  the  captains  with  whom  she 
had  served,  not  a  word  or  a  sign.  Except  for  a  few  of  her 
enemies  who  came  at  last  to  pity  her,  she  was  left  alone. 
She  lived  and  died  as  if  king  and  court  and  soldiers  and 
the  French  nation  had  ceased  to  exist  at  the  moment  of 
her  capture,  and  as  if  there  were  left  to  her  none  but 
enemies. 

Nothing  can  make  the  conduct  of  the  French  brave 
or  honorable,  but  there  is  much  to  explain  it.  Charles 
had  fallen  back  into  the  cowardly  imbecility  from  which 
Joan  had  half  roused  him  only  for  a  moment.  At  no 
time  had  he  will  enough  to  give  him  control  of  his  own 
actions.  La  Tremoille  and  his  followers  had  passed  from 
indifference  to  suspicion,  and  from  suspicion  to  dislike, 
until  they  had  come  to  hate  Joan  with  a  hatred  meaner 
than  that  of  Cauchon.2  As  to  Alencon,  the  Bastard,  La 
Hire,  and  the  rest,  they  knew  that  it  was  hopeless  to 
attempt  Joan's  rescue  by  force  of  arms,  and  they  weakly 
left  the  way  of  negotiation  to  the  court.3  They  had  been 
taught  that  the  Devil  was  exceedingly  crafty,  and  they 
may  have  been  awed  by  the  haunting  fear  that  Joan  was 
a  witch  after  all.  Among  the  common  people  she  was 
not  quite  forgotten.  In  a  remote  part  of  France,  in  Dau- 
phiny,  these  prayers  were  offered  in  her  behalf :  — • 

1  See   Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  178.      Charles  was  at  Sens   in 
August  and  September.     In  the  following  winter  he  was  at  Chinon. 
See  Beaucourt,  ii.  268,  277,  430. 

2  See  Rev.  Hist.,  t.  xix.  62. 

8  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  capture  of  Louviers  by 
La  Hire  in  October  was  any  part  of  an  attempt  to  rescue  Joan.  See 
Beaucourt,  ii.  255  ;  Vallet  de  V.,  Charles  VII.,  ii.  244. 


NEGOTIATIONS   FOR   JOAN'S   PURCHASE.  235 

"  Almighty  and  everlasting  God,  who  of  Thine  unspeak- 
able mercy  and  marvelous  goodness  hast  caused  a  virgin 
to  arise  for  the  uplifting  and  preservation  of  France  and 
for  the  confusion  of  its  enemies,  and  hast  permitted  her 
by  their  hands  to  be  cast  into  prison,  as  she  labored 
to  obey  Thy  holy  commandments;  Grant  unto  us,  we 
beseech  Thee,  through  the  intercession  of  the  ever  blessed 
Virgin  and  all  the  Saints,  that  she  may  be  delivered  from 
their  power  unhurt,  and  finally  may  accomplish  the  same 
work  which  Thou  hast  commanded  her. 

*'  Give  ear,  Almighty  God,  to  the  prayers  of  Thy  people, 
and  through  the  sacrament  of  which  we  have  partaken, 
and  by  the  intercession  of  the  ever  blessed  Virgin  and  all 
the  Saints,  break  in  pieces  the  fetters  of  the  Maid,  who 
labored  to  perform  the  work  which  Thou  hadst  appointed 
her,  and  now  by  our  enemies  is  held  in  prison.  Grant 
that  she  by  Thy  goodness  and  mercy  may  go  forth  to  fin- 
ish unhurt  that  which  remains  for  her  to  accomplish, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 1 

The  prayers  of  the  people  of  Dauphiny  were  unknown 
to  Joan.  For  a  year  she  lived  in  prison,  for  many  months 
in  constant  physical  distress,  at  nearly  every  moment  of 
the  day  and  night  in  danger  of  the  foulest  indignity  and 
outrage,  for  weeks  in  daily  danger  of  the  rack,  daily 
subjected  to  the  keenest  mental  torture  which  experts 
could  devise,  with  death  at  the  end.  During  all  this  time, 
her  every  word  and  act  were  watched  by  the  shrewdest  of 
her  enemies,  eager  to  catch  her  in  error  by  fair  means  or 
by  foul,  and  more  than  once  these  enemies  believed  them- 
selves successful.  It  is  plain,  at  any  rate,  that  Joan's 
successes  from  her  capture  to  her  death  were  not  helped 
by  generals  or  soldiers,  by  friends  or  enthusiastic  crowds. 
As  to  the  aid  of  man,  she  stood  alone. 

1  Lane"ry  d'Arc,  Culte  de  J.,  25.  It  is  said  that  there  were  public 
prayers  and  a  procession  at  Tours  in  the  week  which  followed  J.'s 
capture.  See  P.  v.  253. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

BEAUREVOIK. 

LITTLE  is  known  of  Joan's  life  at  Beaulieu,  where  she 
was  kept  for  some  weeks.  The  siege  of  Corn- 
October,  piegne  continued  and,  quite  naturally,  the  prison- 
ers were  entertained  by  their  warders  with  reports 
of  the  progress  made  by  the  Burgundians.  Aulon,  Joan's 
squire,  was  still  with  her.  Becoming  discouraged,  he  said 
to  her  one  day :  "  That  poor  town  of  Compiegne,  which 
you  loved  so  well,  is  to  be  handed  over  this  time  to  the 
enemies  of  France."  Joan  was  not  disheartened  so 
easily.  "  It  shall  not  be,"  she  said ;  "  for  none  of  the 
places  which  the  King  of  Heaven  by  my  means  has  put 
into  the  hands  of  the  gentle  king  Charles  shall  be  retaken 
by  his  enemies,  if  he  will  but  be  diligent  in  guarding 
them." 1  The  proviso  is  characteristic  of  Joan.  Firmly 
as  she  trusted  in  the  aid  of  Heaven,  she  was  far  too  prac- 
tical to  believe  that  it  dispensed  with  the  need  of  the 
utmost  human  effort. 

While  she  was  at  Beaulieu,  the  negotiations  for  her 
purchase  nearly  had  an  unexpected  end.  Joan  almost 
escaped.  She  was  shut  up  in  a  tower  of  the  castle,  appar- 
ently in  a  chamber  closed  by  planking.  Perhaps  the 
boards  were  hurriedly  fastened  together ;  in  some  way  or 
other  she  slipped  out  between  two  of  them,  and  the  way 
of  escape  seemed  clear.  She  was  about  to  bolt  the  door, 
so  as  to  shut  up  her  warders  in  the  tower,  when  the  porter 
appeared,  and  she  was  taken  back  to  prison.2 

Her  attempt  had  come  so  near  success  that  John  of 
1  P.  iv.  35,  Cagny.  2  P.  i.  163,  J.'s  test. 


BEAUREVOIE.  237 

Luxemburg  would  let  her  stay  in  Beaulieu  no  longer,  but 
removed  her  to  Beaurevoir,  his  principal  castle.  This  was 
in  Picardy,  a  fortress  recently  built  or  enlarged,  with  high 
walls,  great  towers,  and  a  deep  moat.  In  one  of  the  towers 
Joan  was  confined.1 

At  this  time  Luxemburg's  wife  and  aunt  were  living  in 
Beaurevoir.  Some  twelve  years  earlier  he  had  married 
Joanna  of  Bethune,  the  rich  widow  of  Robert  of  Bar. 
Throughout  her  life  the  countess  was  well  disposed  to  the 
royalists,  and  her  first  husband,  killed  in  fighting  the  Eng- 
lish at  Agincourt,  had  been  the  feudal  overlord  of  Doin- 
reniy.2  Luxemburg's  maiden  aunt,  commonly  called  the 
demoiselle  of  Luxemburg,  was  an  elderly  woman  having 
a  great  reputation  for  sanctity.  Though  she  was  willing 
to  accept  a  pension  from  the  English,  it  is  not  likely  that 
she  took  their  side  very  strongly.3 

When  Joan  was  brought  to  the  castle,  these  ladies, 
like  the  rest  of  the  Anglo-Burgundian  world,  undoubtedly 
believed  her  to  be  a  witch.  After  they  came  to  know 
her,  their  curiosity  and  horror  were  turned  to  pity.  Her 
dress,  directly  forbidden  by  Scripture,  greatly  shocked 
them,  and  they  tried  to  persuade  her  to  change  it,  offering 
to  give  her  a  woman's  dress,  or  cloth  out  of  which  to  make 
one.  She  was  grateful  for  their  kindness,  and  would  have 
yielded  to  them,  as  she  afterwards  said,  sooner  than  to 
any  other  ladies  in  France,  except  her  queen.  She  an- 
swered them,  however,  that  she  had  not  God's  leave  to 
change  her  dress,  and  also  that  the  time  for  changing  it 
was  not  yet  come.4 

Thus  favored  by  the  ladies  of  Luxemburg,  Joan's  im- 
prisonment at  Beaurevoir  was  probably  less  harsh  than 
any  she  suffered  before  or  afterwards,  but  an  incident  in 

1  See  Gomart,  J.  au  chateau  de  Beaurevoir. 

2  Vallet  de  V.,  ii.  172  ;  Gomart,  190  ;  Fenin,  ann.  1423. 

3  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  (535). 

4  P.  i.  95,  96,  J.'s  test. 


238  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

it,  known  almost  by  chance,  shows  what  was  her  life  in 
prison,  even  at  its  best.  Among  the  retainers  of  John  of 
Luxemburg  was  Haiinond  of  Macy,  a  squire  then  living 
at  Beaurevoir.  Either  he  was  one  of  Joan's  warders,  or 
he  was  often  sent  to  her  by  his  master ;  in  any  case,  he 
was  curious  to  see  her  and  to  talk  with  her.  Macy  was  a 
rough  young  soldier  ;  Joan,  even  if  a  witch,  was  a  young 
girl  to  whom,  on  account  of  her  position  and  supposed 
character,  he  owed  no  respect.  Often,  as  he  testified,  he 
used  to  hustle  her  in  joke,  and,  though  she  kept  him  off 
as  well  as  she  could,  he  would  thrust  his  hands  into  her 
bosom,  that  he  might  feel  of  her  breasts,  probably  in  mere 
wanton  jest,  without  intending  further  violence.  How  far 
Joan  wore  men's  clothes  in  direct  obedience  to  her  heav- 
enly voices,  how  far  in  human  prudence  to  keep  herself 
from  violence,  how  far  as  the  only  means  of  obeying  a 
divine  command  to  keep  herself  a  virgin,  it  is  not  possible 
to  say.  Very  likely  all  motives  guided  her,  and  her  answer 
to  the  ladies  of  Luxemburg,  that  the  time  had  not  come 
for  changing  her  dress,  may  well  have  been  made  after 
a  struggle  with  Haimond  of  Macy  or  with  another  of 
her  keepers.  Even  upon  Macy  she  made  an  impression. 
Twenty-five  years  afterwards,  he  was  summoned  to  tell 
what  he  knew  about  her.  The  depositions  of  nearly  all 
the  other  witnesses  called  at  the  same  time,  after  record- 
ing their  answers  to  the  questions  asked,  close  with  the 
words,  "  And  the  witness  knows  nothing  further."  Macy's 
deposition,  after  answering  the  usual  questions  concern- 
ing Joan,  ends  thus  :  "  And  the  witness  believes  that  she 
is  in  paradise."  1 

While  Joan  was  held  at  Beaurevoir,   Cauchon  urged 

forward  the  negotiations  for  her  purchase.     He  was  very 

busy  over  the  matter,  though  it  is  not  known  what  means 

of  persuasion  he  used,  beyond  the  offer  of  money.     Early 

1  P.  iii.  121,  Macy. 


BEAUREVOIR.  239 

in  August  died  the  duke  of  Brabant,1  cousin  of  Philip  of 
Burgundy,  who  at  once  gave  Luxemburg  charge  of  the 
siege  of  Compiegne  and  started  to  take  possession  of  his 
kinsman's  estates.  So  earnest  was  the  bishop  that  he 
could  not  wait  for  the  duke's  return,  but  posted  after  him, 
apparently  to  secure  his  consent  to  the  proposed  bargain. 
The  inheritance  of  Brabant  was  disputed ;  Philip's  aunt 
claimed  a  part  of  it,  but  yielded  when  she  recognized 
the  greatly  superior  strength  of  her  nephew.  Perhaps 
Cauchon  assured  Philip  that  the  English  would  support 
his  pretensions ;  at  any  rate,  the  succession  was  peacefully 
settled.  The  duke  got  the  lion's  share,  and  another  part 
was  secured  to  the  old  demoiselle  of  Luxemburg,  from 
whom  John  was  sure  presently  to  inherit.2  These  mat- 
ters may  or  may  not  have  affected  thg  fate  of  Joan ;  at 
about  the  time  they  were  arranged  the  bargain  for  her 
sale  was  completed.  Her  price  was  fijted  at  ten  thousand 
pounds,  the  larger  sum  mentioned  by  Cauchon  in  his  letter 
to  Luxemburg,  but  ten  thousand  pou&ds  in  hard  money, 
and  not  a  bond  for  ten  thousand,  as  Cauchon  had  pro- 
posed. Beside  this  price,  an  annuity  was  secured  to 
Wandonne.3 

The  bargain  once  completed,  the  English  were  in  no 
hurry  to  pay  the  price,  as  ten  thousand  pounds  in  ready 
money  was  a  sum  not  easily  come  at.  The  English  treas- 
ury was  none  too  full,  and  Henry's  council  did  not  pro- 
pose to  take  Joan's  price  out  of  it.  Henry  was  king 
of  France  as  well  as  of  England.  Joan  had  rebelled 
against  him  in  France,  and,  so  far  as  was  possible,  France 
should  bear  the  cost  of  putting  down  the  rebellion.  To- 
ward the  end  of  August  the  estates  of  the  province  of 

1  He  died  on  August  4,  and  the  news  of  his  death  reached  Philip 
of  Burgundy  on  August  15.     Beaucourt,  ii.  38,  n. ;   St.  Remy,  ch. 
fclxi. 

2  See  Monstrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  xciii. ;  P.  v.  194. 
8  P.  iii.  134,  Manchon. 


240  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Normandy  were  summoned  to  meet  at  Rouen,  and  there- 
upon were  asked  to  grant  one  hundred  and  twenty  thou- 
sand pounds,  of  which  sum  ten  thousand  pounds  were 
especially  appropriated  "  to  the  payment  of  the  price  of 
Joan  the  Maid,  who  is  said  to  be  a  witch."  The  grant 
was  voted,  early  in  September  the  tax  was  assessed,  and 
throughout  the  autumn  of  1430  its  collection  went  on ; 
apparently  the  money  did  not  come  in  very  freely.1 

Joan  was  not  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  plans  for  her 
sale.  When  Macy  joked  with  her,  he  probably  amused 
himself  by  threatening  her  with  the  English.  Once,  at 
least,  Cauchon  himself  came  to  Beaurevoir,2  and  Joan 
could  follow  step  by  step  the  progress  of  his  negotiations. 
To  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  English  seemed  the 
most  horrible  fate  that  could  befall  her.  She  knew  well 
how  they  feared  and  hated  her,  and,  while  she  hardly 
hated  them  in  return,  for  she  seems  to  have  been  really 
incapable  of  hating  any  one,  yet  she  dreaded  them  with 
the  vague  horror  then  felt  for  men  of  a  hostile  race  and 
an  unknown  tongue.  As  time  went  on,  and  her  sale 
became  an  assured  fact,  she  was  fearfully  distressed. 

She  appealed  to  her  voices,  but  even  the  comfort  they 
gave  her  could  not  calm  her.  For  more  than  eighteen 
years  she  had  lived  an  active  life  out  of  doors,  and  the 
confinement  wore  upon  her  nerves.  Beside  confinement 
and  insult  and  fear  of  the  English,  she  was  sick  at  heart 
over  the  news  from  Compiegne.  Closer  and  closer  did 
John  of  Luxemburg  press  the  siege,  and  every  Burgun- 
dian  advance,  every  success  of  the  besiegers  was  rehearsed 
to  her,  doubtless  with  exaggeration.  The  city  would 
soon  be  taken,  so  they  told  her,  and  then  all  the  dwellers 
in  it,  from  seven  years  old  and  upwards,  would  be  put  to 
the  sword  or  burned  in  its  destruction.  In  her  distress 

1  P.  v.  178  ;  Beaurepaire,  Etats  de  Normandie  sous  la  domination 
anglaise,  40. 

2  P.  v.  194. 


BEAUREVOIR.  241 

she  cried  to  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Margaret,  "  How  can 
God  leave  to  perish  these  good  people  of  Compiegne,  who 
have  been  so  faithful  to  their  lord  ?  " 

From  the  tower  in  which  she  was  imprisoned  she  could 
look  out  over  the  country.  As  her  distress  increased, 
she  was  seized  with  a  desire  to  throw  herself  from  this 
tower,  either  through  a  window  or  from  the  top  of  it, 
where  she  may  have  been  allowed  to  walk.  The  height 
was  great,  yet  there  was  a  slight  chance  of  reaching  the 
ground  in  safety,  and  so  of  escaping  and  bringing  help 
again  to  her  good  friends  in  Compiegne.  That  the  fall 
should  kill  her  was  at  least  probable,  but  rather  than  be 
in  the  hands  of  the  English,  she  preferred  to  die. 

As  in  every  other  action  of  her  life,  so  in  this,  she  took 
counsel  of  her  voices,  and  it  is  noteworthy  that,  morbid 
and  nervous  as  was  her  condition,  they  firmly  and  persist- 
ently forbade  her  to  throw  herself  from  the  tower.  Day 
after  day  she  appealed  to  them,  and  always  received  the 
same  answer.  God  would  aid  both  her  and  the  men  of 
Compiegne,  so  the  voice  of  St.  Catherine  told  her.  "  Since 
God  will  aid  the  people  of  Compiegne,  I  would  I  were 
there,"  said  Joan.  "You  must  take  what  comes  to  you 
without  repining,  for  you  shall  not  be  delivered  until  you 
have  seen  the  English  king,"  she  heard  the  voice  reply. 
For  once  the  poor  girl's  will  rebelled  against  her  heavenly 
visitors.  "  I  do  not  wish  to  see  him.  I  would  rather  die 
than  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  English,"  she  cried  in  her 
distress. 

The  long  struggle  between  her  wishes  and  her  counsel- 
ors came  to  an  end.  Hearing,  it  may  be,  some  fresh 
piece  of  bad  news,  dizzied,  perhaps,  by  looking  over  the 
sheer  walls  of  the  tower,  and  unaccustomed  to  stand  in 
high  places,  she  commended  herself  to  God  and  our  Lady 
and  jumped.  The  shock  stunned  her ;  when  she  came  to 
her  senses,  she  was  again  in  the  hands  of  her  captors. 
No  bones  were  broken,  but  she  was  badly  shaken,  and 


242  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

for  two  or  three  days  could  hardly  eat  or  drink.  To  her 
physical  suffering  and  her  old  mental  distress  there  was 
now  added  remorse  for  her  sin  in  disobeying  the  com- 
mand of  God.  St.  Catherine  soon  came  to  her,  however, 
and  bade  her  confess  her  sin  and  ask  God's  pardon  for 
it ;  then  the  voice  comforted  Joan,  told  her  to  be  of  good 
cheer,  and  promised  that  she  should  get  well.  As  to  the 
city  of  Compiegne,  that  should  certainly  be  delivered  be- 
fore Martinmas.  On  hearing  these  things,  Joan  gave  up 
her  wish  of  dying,  took  heart,  and  began  to  eat ;  soon  she 
was  completely  recovered.  By  the  command  of  St.  Cath- 
erine she  confessed  her  sins  to  the  priest  and  asked  God's 
forgiveness ;  having  done  this,  she  was  assured  by  the 
saint  that  she  was  forgiven. 

This  conduct  of  Joan  shows  plainly  the  healthiness  of 
her  temper  and  of  her  religion.  Though  she  had  a  faint 
hope  of  escaping  alive,  she  knew  quite  well  that  to  jump 
from  the  tower  offered  no  reasonable  chance  of  escape, 
except  by  death.  Neither  before  nor  after  her  leap,  in 
spite  of  her  nervous  distress,  did  she  ever  pretend  to  her- 
self or  to  others  that  she  had  a  right  thus  to  take  her 
life  in  her  hands.  Having  taken  it,  and  thus  having 
committed  sin,  she  never  sought  to  justify  herself.  On 
the  other  hand,  neither  to  herself  nor  to  others  would 
she  exaggerate  her  offense.  The  temptation  had  been 
great,  she  had  yielded  to  it,  had  confessed  her  wrong- 
doing, and  had  been  forgiven.  Thereafter  she  let  no  one 
trouble  her  in  the  matter.1 

Not  long  afterwards,  the  English  were  ready  to  com- 
plete their  purchase  of  Joan,  and  Luxemburg  was  called 
upon  to  deliver  his  prisoner.  In  the  latter  part  of  Octo- 
ber, Joan  was  sent  from  Beaurevoir  to  Arras,  where,  as 
it  seems,  Philip  of  Burgundy  then  held  his  court.2  Ap- 
parently, she  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Burgundians, 

1  P.  i.  110,  150,  160,  169,  J.'s  test. 

2  Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  164. 


BEAUREVOIR.  243 

and  was  still  treated  as  a  prisoner  of  war.  Some  of  the 
duke's  company  begged  her  to  put  on  women's  clothes, 
and  again  she  refused.1  A  little  later  she  was  sent  from 
Arras  to  Le  Crotoy,  at  the  mouth  of  the  river  Somme,  a 
strong  fortress  which  for  about  seven  years  had  been 
held  by  the  English.2  According  to  tradition,  she  was 
visited  on  her  journey  by  many  people,  partly  out  of 
curiosity,  partly  from  sympathy.3  Either  at  Arras  or 
Le  Crotoy,  or  at  some  place  between  the  two,  the  Eng- 
lish took  their  prisoner  and  paid  their  money.4 

It  seems  that  the  demoiselle  of  Luxemburg  protested 
against  Joan's  sale  to  the  English,5  and  her  nephew's 
act  has  generally  been  considered  to  involve  the  basest 
treachery.  The  kind  old  woman's  attempt  to  save  from 
suffering  and  death  a  poor  girl  whom  she  pitied  is  of  a 
piece  with  what  is  known  of  the  rest  of  her  life  ;  but  the 
count's  act  did  not  transgress  the  morality  of  his  age.  A 
prisoner,  as  has  been  said,  was  a  security  for  a  sum  of 
money,  and  could  be  assigned  to  another  person  with  as 
little  impropriety  as  that  involved  in  the  assignment  of  a 
modern  mortgage.  It  is  true  that  the  count  more  than 
suspected  that  Joan's  purchasers  would  not  treat  her  as  a 
prisoner  of  war,  but  this  can  hardly  be  taken  as  adding 
to  his  guilt.  He  would  not  have  considered  himself  re- 
sponsible for  the  misuse  of  property  fairly  sold,  and  he 

1  See  P.  i.  95,  96,  J.'s  test.     John  of  Pressy,  whose  name  is  men- 
tioned by  Joan,  seems  to  have  left  Arras  on  an  embassy  to  England 
on  November  4.    Stevenson,  Wars  Eng.,  ii.  164  (531,  536).    He  was 
at  Rouen  November  24.     Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  17. 

2  Vallet  de  V.,  i.  396. 

3  See  P.  v.  358  et  seq. 

4  The  money  for  Joan's  purchase  was  repaid  to  the  keeper  of  the 
royal  chest  by  the  receiver-general  of  Normandy  on  December  6. 
It  was  therefore  paid  to  Luxemburg  before  that  time.     Apparently 
the  keeper  of  the  chest  advanced  the  cash  about  October  24.     See 
P.  v.  190. 

6  P.  i.  231. 


244  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

may  well  have  believed  Joan's  sale  to  be  an  act  posi- 
tively virtuous,  commended  as  it  was  by  the  authorities 
of  the  church  and  by  those  learned  in  the  law.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  not  ready  to  sell 
Joan  to  the  highest  bidder.  After  Charles  VII.  had  let 
several  months  go  by  without  even  making  him  an  offer 
for  her,  Luxemburg  can  hardly  be  blamed  for  selling  her 
elsewhere.  To  accuse  him  of  betraying  her  is  to  imply 
that  loyalty  to  Charles's  cause  was  his  moral  duty,  an  im- 
plication which  the  confused  condition  of  France  makes 
absurd.  Whether  it  be  right  to  treat  as  betrayal  the 
course  of  the  French  court,  which,  having  been  saved  by 
Joan  from  ruin,  let  her  be  sold  to  the  English  and  by 
them  burnt  for  a  witch,  without  even  a  diplomatic  pro- 
test, is  quite  another  question.  John  of  Luxemburg  was 
a  hard-fighting  nobleman,  rather  savage  and  brutal,  but 
essentially  like  others  of  his  class,  neither  much  better 
nor  much  worse. 

On  October  24,  probably  while  Joan  was  at  Arras,  a 
French  army  under  Boussac  and  Vendome  marched  to 
the  relief  of  Compiegne ;  on  the  following  day  it  found 
itself  face  to  face  with  John  of  Luxemburg,  who  had 
drawn  up  his  troops  to  cover  the  approach  to  the  city. 
While  the  two  armies  were  thus  observing  each  other, 
the  garrison  and  citizens  of  Compiegne  sallied  out  in 
Luxemburg's  rear  and  stormed  one  of  the  forts  which 
he  had  built  to  blockade  the  place,  being  assisted  by  a 
detachment  which  the  French  generals  had  ordered  to 
pass  around  his  flank.  By  this  manoeuvre  the  French 
were  able  to  enter  Compiegne,  and,  having  done  so,  crossed 
the  river  by  boat  and  stormed  other  forts  erected  near 
the  place  where  Joan  had  been  taken  prisoner.  So  com- 
pletely were  the  operations  of  the  besiegers  broken  up 
that  the  English  captains  would  remain  no  longer,  and 
forced  Luxemburg  to  withdraw,  "much  displeased  at 
heart,  though  he  could  not  help  it."  This  ending  of  the 


BEAUREVOIR.  245 

siege,  five  months  after  Joan's  capture,  fulfilled  the  prom- 
ise of  her  voices,  which  had  foretold  the  delivery  of  Com- 
piegne  before  Martinmas,  the  eleventh  of  November.1 

1  Sorel,  Prise  de  J.  devant  Compiegne,  255  et  seq.,  and  authorities 
cited  ;  Moustrelet,  Bk.  II.  ch.  xcvi. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

ROUEN. 

Now  that  Joan  was  bought  and  paid  for,  and  safely  in 

their  hands,  the  English  were  free  to  act  on  the 
Nov.-  . 

Dec.,         theory  that  she  was  a  witch,  or  to  treat  her  as  a 

prisoner  of  war.  For  a  short  time  they  seemed 
to  hesitate,  and  kept  her  at  Le  Crotoy,  where  she  was 
allowed  to  confess  to  the  chancellor  of  Amiens,  himself  a 
prisoner  of  some  distinction,  and  to  attend  the  masses 
which  he  celebrated  in  the  castle.1  The  hesitation  of  the 
English  angered  the  authorities  of  the  University  of 
Paris,  fierce  partisans  as  they  were,  and  on  November  21 
they  wrote  both  to  Cauchon  and  to  Henry  VI. 

"  We  greatly  wonder,  reverend  father,"  they  wrote  to 
the  bishop,  "that  the  dispatch  of  this  woman,  vulgarly 
called  the  Maid,  has  been  so  long  put  off,  to  the  injury  of 
the  faith  and  of  the  church's  jurisdiction,  and  our  wonder 
is  the  greater  now  that  she  is,  as  we  hear,  in  the  hands 
of  the  king.  Perchance  if  your  Grace  had  shown  keener 
diligence  in  this  matter,  the  cause  of  the  said  woman 
would  already  have  been  brought  before  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal courts.  With  the  utmost  diligence,  therefore,  your 
Grace's  zeal  should  be  directed  to  prevent  the  authority 
of  the  church  from  suffering  greater  injury  by  longer 
delay  in  this  matter."  They  further  begged  Cauchon  to 
arrange  for  Joan's  trial  in  Paris,  "  where  there  is  a 
great  number  of  wise  and  learned  men,  so  that  her 
cause  can  be  quickly  heard  and  properly  decided  to  the 
enlightenment  of  Christian  people  and  to  the  glory  of 
God."2 

1  P.  iii.  121,  Macy.  2  P.  i.  15. 


ROUEN.  247 

The  letter  to  Henry  VI.  was  not  quite  so  sharp  in  its 
tone,  but  its  substance  was  the  same.  The  king  was  re- 
minded of  his  duty  to  put  down  heresy ;  several  earlier 
letters  on  the  subject,  written  to  him  by  the  university, 
were  recalled  to  his  attention,  and  he  was  begged  to  hand 
Joan  over  to  the  bishop  and  to  the  inquisitor-general, 
that  she  might  be  tried  by  them  and  punished  as  she  de- 
served. Paris,  he  was  told,  was  the  place  best  suited  to 
her  trial,  both  on  account  of  the  learned  men  who  lived 
there,  and  also  because  her  punishment  should  be  inflicted 
in  the  place  where  her  crimes  had  been  committed.1 

It  has  been  suggested  that  these  letters  were  procured 
by  Cauchon  and  the  English  council,2  in  order  to  justify 
themselves  for  the  course  which  they  afterwards  followed. 
No  doubt  the  letters  served  as  a  justification  of  Joan's 
trial,  but  they  were  probably  written  in  good  faith,  for 
Cauchon  would  hardly  have  dictated  a  rebuke  as  sharp  as 
that  which  was  sent  him.  The  University  of  Paris  was 
proud  of  its  orthodoxy,  and  had  gained  in  France  no 
small  part  of  the  authority  which  in  some  other  countries 
belonged  to  the  Inquisition. 3  Bitterly  prejudiced  against 
Joan,  it  longed  to  have  her  in  its  hands,  and,  with  the 
other  authorities  of  Paris,  it  had  spared  no  pains  to  stir 
up  the  people  of  the  city  against  her.  On  September  3 
a  Breton  woman  had  been  burned  to  death,  after  a  ser- 
mon rehearsing  her  crimes  had  been  preached  to  the 
crowd  which  had  gathered  for  the  show.  The  poor  crea- 
ture believed  that  God  had  visited  her,  and  she  had  dared 
to  say  that  Joan  was  a  good  girl,  doing  good  and  obey- 
ing God's  will.4  The  conduct  of  the  university  during 

1  P.  i.  17.     Henry  VI.  arrived  at  Rouen  July  29,  1430.     See 
Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  14  ;  Cochon,  Chron.  Normande,  312. 

2  For  the  English  council  at  this  time,  see  Beaurepaire,  Recherches, 
17.     Bedford  was  absent  from  Rouen  throughout  the  trial.     Ib.,  65 
et  seq. 

8  See  Lea,  Hist.  Inquisition,  ii.  135. 

4  P.  iv.  467,  Journ.  Bourg.  •  Quellien,  Une  compagne  de  J.    Certain 


248  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Joan's  trial  showed  that  it  needed  no  urging  to  take  sides 
against  her. 

Thus  pressed  by  the  university  and  probably  also  by 
Cauchon,  the  English  were  perplexed.  As  has  been  said 
already,  if  they  carried  Joan  to  England  and  kept  her 
there  as  a  prisoner  of  war,  they  would  greatly  irritate 
the  only  real  friends  left  to  them  in  France,  and  they 
would  leave  themselves  under  the  imputation  of  having 
opposed  the  will  of  God  as  declared  by  his  messenger. 
Even  if  they  should  secretly  put  Joan  to  death  in  prison, 
they  would  not  destroy  the  glory  which  she  and  her 
visions  had  brought  to  the  French  arms.  That  could 
be  done  only  by  proving  her  to  be  the  messenger  of 
Satan. l 

To  try  her  for  a  witch,  on  the  other  hand,  was  no  sim- 
ple matter.  If  the  trial  were  held  in  England,  the  de- 
cision of  the  court  would  lose  much  of  its  proper  effect ; 
there  was  reason  in  the  remark  of  the  university,  that 
the  fitting  place  for  Joan's  punishment  and  disgrace  was 
that  in  which  her  crimes  had  been  committed.  To  try 
her  in  Paris,  however,  was  out  of  the  question.  She  was 
safe  in  Le  Crotoy,  an  impregnable  fortress ;  the  road  be- 
tween that  place  and  Paris  was  long  and  beset  by  the 
French.2  The  English  councilors  could  hardly  believe 
that  Charles  VII.  was  willing  to  leave  Joan  to  her  fate 
without  a  struggle,  and  they  dreaded  her  rescue  by  her 
friends,  either  her  old  companions  in  arms,  or  her  sup- 
posed master,  Satan.  Moreover,  Paris  was  largely  in  the 
control  of  the  duke  of  Burgundy,  as  Henry's  lieutenant, 

amiably  patriotic  Bretons  have  tried  to  make  a  heroine  of  the  poor 
wretch,  but  the  material  is  too  scanty. 

1  See  P.  iv.  353,  Basin. 

2  See  Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  67.     It  is  possible,  of  course,  that 
Joan's  trial  was  planned  soon  after  her  capture  ;  but  the  letters  of 
the  university  and  the  general  drift  of  the   evidence  seem   to  me 
to  indicate  that  the  English  policy  took  definite  form  long  after- 
wards. 


ROUEN.  249 

and,  after  buying  Joan  for  themselves  with  a  great  price, 
the  English  were  not  ready  to  let  her  fall  again  into 
Philip's  hands.  She  could  not  be  tried  in  Normandy 
before  English  judges.  Only  the  clergy  of  the  province 
had  the  necessary  jurisdiction,  and  few  Englishmen  had 
been  preferred  to  Norman  benefices,  though  Normandy 
had  been  a  conquered  country  for  more  than  ten  years.1 

The  trial  of  Joan,  then,  to  be  both  safe  and  effective, 
must  be  held  in  Normandy  before  French  judges.  To 
give  it  proper  importance,  to  make  her  condemnation  de- 
cisive in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  the  trial  must  be  solemn 
and  imposing,  carried  on  with  due  appearance  of  fairness.2 
Cauchon  was  a  man  well  fitted  to  preside  over  it,  but  a 
number  of  other  men  like-minded  with  Cauchon  were 
needed  to  sit  with  him.  Such  men  were  not  very  nu- 
merous. 

Mention  has  been  made  already  of  the  little  body  of 
politicians  to  which  he  belonged,  the  Burgundian  parti- 
sans who  were  more  Burgundian  than  the  duke  himself, 
and  who  hated  the  Armagnacs  so  fiercely  that  their  utter 
fidelity  to  the  English  followed  as  matter  of  course. 
Among  the  Norman  ecclesiastics  there  were  a  few  who 
belonged  to  this  party,  but  most  of  the  clergy  of  the 
province  were  of  a  temper  quite  different.  To  most  Nor- 
mans, English  rule  was  an  accepted  fact.  They  had  no 
intention  of  revolting  against  their  rulers ;  revolt  had  been 
tried,  and  had  ended  in  disaster.  The  English  had  made 
some  show  of  consulting  them  in  the  government  of  the 
province,  had  called  together  its  estates,  had  protected 
some  of  its  liberties,  and  had  installed  comparatively  few 
English  officials.  For  all  this,  the  Normans  did  not 
greatly  love  their  new  rulers.  Norman  soldiers  could  not 
be  trusted  in  battle,  and  English  captains  were  forbidden 
to  enroll  in  their  companies  any  Frenchmen  except  those 

1  See  Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  57. 
3  See  Varanius,  ed.  Prarond,  101. 


250  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

from  Bordeaux  and  its  neighborhood,  a  district  as  loyal 
as  Kent  or  Norfolk.1  The  people  of  Normandy  would 
make  no  attempt  to  rescue  Joan,  and  the  clergy  would 
not  interfere  to  prevent  her  trial  and  condemnation,  but 
there  was  reason  to  fear  that  neither  people  nor  clergy 
would  be  zealous  in  condemning  her.2 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  the  English  might  well  hesitate, 
but  they  decided  to  take  the  risk,  and  to  send  Joan  to 
Rouen  for  trial  before  Cauchon.  Upon  his  zeal  they 
could  rely ;  the  inquisitor,  who  should  sit  with  him,  was 
not  ill-disposed  toward  them,  and  the  opinion  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris  could  at  any  time  be  taken  and  used  to 
overcome  the  scruples  of  doubting  Norman  assessors. 

After  a  short  stay  at  Le  Crotoy,  Joan  was  therefore 
sent  to  Rouen,  probably  in  the  first  days  of  December. 
Like  other  cities,  Rouen  had  its  citadel  or  castle,3  a  for- 
tress built  by  Philip  Augustus,  close  to  the  city's  walls, 
but  protected  by  its  own  walls,  ditch,  and  towers,  and  able 
to  stand  a  siege  even  after  the  capture  of  the  city.  Joan 
was  imprisoned  near  the  postern  gate  in.  one  of  these 
towers,  a  great  mass  of  masonry  one  hundred  feet  high 
and  something  over  forty  feet  in  diameter,  with  walls 
twelve  feet  thick.  The  room  was  nearly  dark,  feebly 
lighted4  by  a  slit  just  wide  enough  to  shoot  an  arrow 
through,  or  receiving,  perhaps,  all  its  light  and  air 
through  the  doorway.5  Here  she  was  closely  watched  by 

1  Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  35.      French  inroads    into  Normandy 
made  severe  repression  necessary,  and  thus  rendered  English  rule 
unpopular. 

2  The  Norman  clergy  inclined  to  follow  the  council  of  Basle  rather 
than  the  pope,  thus  agreeing  with  the  French  rather  than  with  the 
English.     Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  47. 

8  Warwick  was  captain.     Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  24. 

4  P.  ii.  302,  La  Pierre. 

6  I  confess  that  I  cannet  interpret  more  particularly  the  testimony 
concerning  the  place  of  confinement,  and  I  find  M.  Bouquet's  expla- 
nations more  incomprehensible  than  that  of  the  original  witnesses. 


ROUEN.  251 

half  a  dozen  common  soldiers,  who  had  both  the  leisure 
and  the  disposition  to  mock  her,  to  taunt  her  with  the  cer- 
tainty of  impending  death,  and  to  threaten  her  with  every 
sort  of  violence,  which  they  seem  occasionally  to  have 
attempted.1 

Joan  had  almost  escaped  between  the  planks  of  her 
prison  at  Beaulieu,  and  so  the  confinement  just  described 
was  considered  insufficient.  The  English  caused  to  be 
made  an  iron  cage  in  which  she  could  be  held  sitting 
upright,  chained  by  her  neck,  her  hands,  and  her  feet.2 
It  is  not  certain  that  this  fearful  instrument  of  torture 
was  put  into  use.  During  most  of  her  imprisonment  only 
her  feet  were  fettered,  the  chains  that  held  them  being 
attached  to  another  chain  which  passed  between  the  legs 
of  her  bedstead,  and  was  locked  to  a  heavy  wooden  beam.3 
Her  irons  were  taken  off  only  when  she  was  brought 
into  court.  Harsh  treatment  like  this  had  an  object  be- 
yond safe-keeping  or  the  gratification  of  spite ;  a  trial 
for  sorcery  and  witchcraft  was  not  completely  successful 
without  the  confession  of  the  accused,4  and  that  was 
most  easily  obtained  either  by  judicial  torture  or  by  ill 
treatment  in  prison.  A  confession  Cauchon  and  the 
English  were  determined  to  get. 

Left  to  her  chains  and  her  warders,  seeing  no  human 
faces  but  those  of  her  enemies,  Joan  called  upon  her 
voices,  and  daily  and  nightly  the  saints  visited  her.  They 

Saintrailles,  who  was  confined  in  another  tower  of  the  castle  about  a 
year  later,  was  kept  in  one  of  the  casemates  by  a  barricade  which 
closed  its  inner  opening,  the  outer  opening  being  too  small  to  admit 
his  escape.  See  Bouquet,  J.  au  chateau  de  Rouen  •  ib.,  Notice  histo- 
rique  sur  le  donjon  du  chateau  de  Philippe-Auguste. 

1  P.  iii.  161,  Colles  ;  59,  Courcelles  ;  122,  Macy  ;  147,  Manchon ; 
154,  Massieu  ;  ii.  7,  Ladvenu  ;  18,  Massieu  ;  298,  Manchon. 

2  P.  ii.  306,  346  ;  iii.  180,  Cusquel ;  iii.  155,  Massieu. 

8  P.  ii.  18,  Massieu  ;  306,  Cusquel ;  318,  Taquel ;  iii.  48,  Tiphaine  ; 
200,  Daron. 

4  See  p.  259,  iiifra. 


252  JOAN    OP   ARC. 

promised  her  deliverance,  not  in  any  particular  manner 
or  at  any  fixed  time,  but  deliverance  somehow  for  herself 
and  for  France,  and  they  assured  her  of  God's  care  and 
love.  Having  this  promise  and  assurance,  she  bore  her 
captivity  with  brave  and  unbroken  spirit. 

Various  proceedings  must  be  had  before  her  trial  could 
be  begun.1  As  soon  as  it  was  determined  upon,  Cauchon 
caused  an  inquiry  to  be  made  at  Domremy  and  there- 
abouts concerning  Joan's  way  of  life  as  a  child  and  as  a 
girl.  That  this  should  be  possible  in  a  French  village 
like  Domremy  is  unaccountable,  unless  the  political  confu- 
sion of  eastern  France  is  borne  in  mind.  Joan's  triumphs 
had  not  reached  the  valley  of  the  Meuse.  In  October, 
1429,  soon  after  the  retreat  to  the  Loire,  while  Philip  of 
Burgundy  was  wavering  in  his  allegiance,  Bedford  had 
made  him  lieutenant,  not  only  of  Paris,  but  of  pretty 
much  all  eastern  France.2  In  that  part  of  the  country 
the  English  and  French,  the  partisans  of  Burgundy  and 
the  partisans  of  Charles  VII.,  held  at  the  end  of  1430 
much  the  same  position  they  had  held  at  the  beginning 
of  1429,  when  Joan  set  out  for  Chiuon.  During  the 
summer  of  1430,  indeed,  one  of  Charles's  generals  had 
carried  on  a  successful  war  in  Champagne,3  but  on  the 
borders  of  Lorraine  the  Anglo-Burgundians  were  masters 
of  nearly  everything  except  Vaucouleurs. 

Cauchon's  instructions  were  addressed,  as  it  seems,  to 
John  of  Torcenay,  bailiff  of  Chaumont,  in  which  bail- 
iwick Domremy  was  situated.  Torcenay  had  held  his 
office  for  some  years,  and  was  a  stanch  hater  of  all 
Armagnacs.  He  sent  to  Domremy  the  provost  of  Montes- 

1  According  to  Basin,  P.  iv.  351,  the  discussion  in  the  English 
council  about  Joan's  trial  took   place   after  her  arrival  in  Rouen. 
Basin  was  then  a  young  student  in  Paris,  and  the  account  in  the  text 
is  more  probable. 

2  Beaucourt,  ii.  35,  n. 
8  Beaucourt,  ii.  38. 


ROUEN.  253 

clar  and  one  Bailly,  a  notary,  who  then  and  there  sum- 
moned twelve  or  fifteen  witnesses  and  took  their  deposi- 
tions. The  provost  and  the  notary  stayed  a  short  time 
at  Domremy  in  the  house  of  a  peasant,  and  learned  what 
they  could.  It  is  impossible  to  say  if  any  of  Joan's  family 
were  then  living  in  the  village.  Those  of  the  neighbors 
who  would  not  testify  willingly  were  generally  let  alone, 
for  delay  was  dangerous  with  Baudricourt  and  the  garri- 
son of  Vaucouleurs  near  at  hand.  The  depositions  were 
duly  authenticated  and  were  dispatched  to  the  bailiff. 

The  notary  and  the  provost,  as  it  appears,  were  honest 
men,  possibly  not  over  zealous  in  the  cause  of  England 
and  Burgundy.  What  they  learned  at  Domremy  was  in 
no  way  discreditable  to  Joan,  and  had  no  tendency  to 
prove  her  a  witch.  When  this  was  pointed  out  to  them, 
however,  they  stoutly  affirmed  that  they  had  taken  down 
the  statements  of  the  witnesses  correctly,  at  which  reply 
the  bailiff  became  very  angry  and  called  them  traitor 
Armagnacs.  There  was  nothing  to  do,  however,  but  to 
send  the  depositions  to  Cauchon,  and  let  him  treat  them 
as  he  would.  They  reached  Rouen  about  New  Year's 
day.1 

The  jurisdiction  which .  Cauchon  claimed  over  Joan 
rested  upon  the  fact  that  she  had  been  taken  prisoner 
within  the  bounds  of  his  diocese  of  Beauvais.  This  was 
deemed  sufficient  to  give  him  jurisdiction  over  the  accused, 
and  over  her  crimes  wherever  committed ;  but,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  his  tribunal  should  have  sat 
within  the  limits  of  his  own  diocese.  To  try  Joan  at 
Beauvais  was  impossible,  however,  as  the  bishop  had 
been  driven  out  of  the  place  by  the  patriotic  feeling  which 
she  had  stirred  up.  To  hold  his  court  in  the  archdiocese 
of  Rouen,  he  must  get  leave  from  the  diocesan  authorities. 

1  P.  i.  27  ;  ii.  378  et  seq.  ;  441,  Lebuin  ;  453,  Bailly ;  462,  Ja- 
quard  ;  iii.  192,  Moreau.  For  Torcenay,  see  Luce,  111,  188,  219, 
220,  223. 


254  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

John  of  La  Rochetaillee,  the  last  archbishop,  had  been 
translated  to  Besan9on  about  a  year  before,  and  it  de- 
volved upon  the  chapter  of  the  cathedral  to  administer 
the  diocese  during  the  vacancy. 

The  chapter  of  Rouen  was  a  body  of  considerable  inde- 
pendence of  judgment.  None  of  the  canons  actively 
sympathized  with  the  royalist  cause,  few  of  them  were 
strong  partisans  of  Henry  VI.,  most  of  them  belonged  to 
that  almost  neutral  party  which  has  been  mentioned 
already.  The  chapter  had  no  great  love  for  Cauchon. 
It  had  quarreled  with  the  last  archbishop  and  had  forced 
him  to  agree  not  to  come  to  Rouen  without  its  consent, 
which  consent  he  had  hardly  once  obtained  ;  in  this  quarrel 
Cauchon  had  meddled.  He  wished  to  become  the  next 
archbishop,  and  had  gained  the  recommendation  of  the 
English;  the  canons  had  another  candidate.  Bedford  had 
got  permission  from  the  pope  to  levy  a  tax  of  thirty  thou- 
sand pounds  on  the  clergy  of  Normandy  and  had  charged 
Cauchon  with  its  collection ;  in  this  the  bishop  had  been 
so  zealous  that  the  clergy  had  appealed  from  him  to  the 
pope.1 

In  spite  of  their  want  of  friendliness,  the  canons  could 
hardly  resist  Cauchon 's  demand,  not  unreasonable  in  it- 
self, and  backed  by  English  influence.  Some  of  them, 
though  Frenchmen,  owed  their  seats  to  English  nomina- 
tion. Only  two  months  before,  on  his  recovery  from 
a  severe  illness,  the  regent  Bedford  himself,  a  man  of 
religion  and  of  high  character  according  to  the  standard 
of  the  times,  had  asked  and  obtained  admission  to  a  can- 
onry.  Accompanied  by  his  wife,  he  had  been  received 
with  great  pomp  by  the  chapter,  Cauchon  acting  as 
bishop,  and  both  duke  and  duchess  had  borne  themselves 
with  great  humility  through  the  long  ceremony.2  In 

1  See  Beaurepaire,  Recherches  sur  le  proces  de  condamnation  de  J., 
especially  pages  50  et  seq. 

2  Beaurepaire,  61. 


ROUEN.  255 

honor  of  his  admission,  Bedford  had  made  large  gifts  to 
the  cathedral,  for  which  he  seems  to  have  had  a  real  affec- 
tion, and  in  which,  five  years  later,  he  was  buried  at  his 
own  request.  Bedford  doubtless  wished  that  Cauchon's 
request  should  be  granted,  and  it  was  impossible  for  the 
chapter  to  disregard  the  wish  of  a  man  who  was  at  once 
its  master  and  friend.  On  December  28,  accordingly, 
letters  were  issued  to  Cauchon. 

They  set  forth  that  Cauchon  sought  to  proceed  against 
a  certain  woman,  who  had  not  only  cast  aside  all  decency 
and  behaved  shamelessly  and  as  one  unsexed,  but  also  had 
held  and  spread  abroad  many  things  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  faith  and  in  derogation  of  its  articles.  By  God's 
pleasure  this  woman  had  been  taken  in  Cauchon's  diocese, 
and  he  had  prevailed  upon  her  captors  to  deliver  her  up, 
so  that  she  was  now  come  into  his  hands  in  the  city  of 
Rouen.  Here  he  proposed  to  hold  his  court,  to  examine 
witnesses,  to  question  the  accused  herself,  and,  if  neces- 
sary, to  put  her  in  prison.  In  acting  thus  he  did  not  in- 
tend to  thrust  his  sickle  into  the  harvest  of  the  chapter, 
but  begged  it  to  grant  him  for  his  purpose  sufficient  terri- 
torial rights.  These  the  chapter  graciously  accorded, 
commanding  all  persons  to  assist  the  bishop,  and  author- 
izing him  to  proceed,  either  in  company  with  the  inquis- 
itor or  without  him,  as  if  he  were  acting  within  his  own 
diocese.  All  which  was  done  saving  the  dignity  of  the 
archdiocese  of  Rouen.1 

After  Cauchon  had  acquired  the  right  to  exercise  his 
jurisdiction  in  Rouen,  the  English  government  delivered 
to  him  its  prisoner.  On  January  3,  1431,  the  proclama- 
tion issued,  rehearsing  Joan's  attempt  to  seduce  simple 
people  into  the  belief  that  she  was  sent  by  God,  and  de- 
claring that  the  king,  for  the  reverence  and  honor  of 
God's  name,  and  for  the  defense  and  exaltation  of  Holy 
Church,  at  the  request  of  his  dear  and  well-beloved  datigh- 

1  P.  i.  20. 


256  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

ter  the  University  of  Paris,  was  willing  to  hand  over 
Joan  to  the  bishop  for  trial.  "  It  is  our  intention,  how- 
ever," the  proclamation  continued,  "  to  retake  into  our 
custody  the  aforesaid  Joan,  in  case  she  should  not  be 
convicted  of  any  of  the  aforementioned  crimes."  The 
English  were  not  willing  to  trust  their  prisoner  without 
reserve,  even  to  the  vigorous  zeal  of  Cauchon.1 

Before  entering  upon  the  history  of  the  trial  of  Joan  of 
Arc,  it  is  well  to  consider  just  what  was  the  temper  and 
intention  of  the  bishop  at  the  time  the  trial  began.  Most 
certainly  he  did  not  look  upon  Joan  with  that  freedom 
from  prejudice  which  is  the  habit  of  every  good  judge  at 
the  present  day.  Before  he  ever  saw  her,  he  had  a  most 
decided  opinion  concerning  her  guilt,  and  he  tried  her 
with  the  distinct  intention  of  condemning  her,  the  possi- 
bility of  an  acquittal  never  having  entered  his  mind.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  had  no  intention  of  condemning  the 
innocent,  or  of  rendering  a  judgment  in  any  way  unjust. 
Joan's  guilt  was  so  certain  that  it  would  be  a  grievous 
failure  of  justice  if  that  guilt  was  not  made  to  appear 
plainly.  For  the  purpose  of  mere  justice,  indeed,  a  trial 
was  hardly  needed,  and  its  principal  object  was  not  to  de- 
termine Joan's  guilt,  but  to  make  that  guilt  manifest  to 
all  the  world.  At  the  outset  of  the  trial  Cauchon's  tem- 
per was  neither  judicial  nor  hypocritical,  but  that  of  a 
sincerely  bigoted  partisan.  How  far  it  changed  as  the 
trial  went  on  is  another  matter. 

1  P.  i.  18. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TRIAL. 

To  understand  the  trial  of  Joan  of  Arc,  it  is  necessary 
to  know  something  of  the  form  of  trial  ordinarily   January, 
used  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  especially  of  the   1431> 
methods  of  the  Holy  Inquisition  and  other  ecclesiastical 
tribunals. 

The  old  Teutonic  theory  of  jurisprudence  knew  no 
broad  difference  between  civil  and  criminal  law,  and  re- 
garded all  criminal  proceedings  as  lawsuits  brought  by 
the  aggrieved  person  against  the  offender.  As  between 
the  two  parties  to  the  suit,  the  court,  however  constituted, 
held  itself  impartial,  and  left  them  to  fight  it  out  or  to 
settle  it  according  to  some  one  of  the  traditional  methods 
of  trial.  This  primitive  theory  was  quite  inadequate  to 
meet  the  conditions  of  advancing  civilization.  In  England 
the  community,  which  originally  acted  only  as  the  judge 
between  complainant  and  defendant,  in  later  times  became 
vested  with  two  distinct  and  even  contradictory  functions. 
On  the  one  hand  the  sovereign,  theoretically  at  least, 
replaced  the  original  private  complainant  in  a  criminal 
suit  and  prosecuted  it  as  an  interested  party,  avowedly 
hostile  to  the  defendant;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
sovereign's  judges  sat  to  hear  the  case  with  primitive 
impartiality,  deciding  it  as  between  party  and  party, 
substantially  like  a  civil  action.  Neither  the  sovereign  as 
complainant,  nor  the  sovereign  as  judge,  acting  separately, 
undertook  to  determine  if  the  accused  was  really  guilty. 
The  former  strove  to  prove  him  guilty,  the  latter,  with 
the  help  of  a  jury,  decided  if  the  proof  offered  at  the 


258  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

trial  was  formally  and  substantially  sufficient  to  sustain 
the  complaint  or  indictment.  If  the  proof  failed,  either  in 
form  or  substance,  then,  though  the  accused  were  plainly 
the  greatest  scoundrel  in  the  realm,  yet  the  court  held 
him  harmless.1 

This  method,  theoretically  absurd,  but  in  the  conditions 
of  mediaeval  civilization  practically  pretty  sensible,  found 
less  favor  on  the  Continent.  In  France  the  idea  of  crim- 
inal prosecution  as  a  contest  between  two  parties  tended 
to  disappear,2  and  the  courts  undertook  in  the  first  in- 
stance to  seek  out  the  criminal  and  afterwards  to  judge 
him.  The  defendant  might,  indeed,  be  denounced  to  the 
judge  by  some  person  whom  he  had  wronged,  but  pri- 
vate complaint  or  denunciation  was  not  necessary.  The 
judge  himself,  of  his  own  notion,  made  inquisition  for 
the  offender.  Even  if  the  complaint  was  originally  made 
by  a  private  person,  yet  the  judge  usually  held  a  prelimi- 
nary inquest  before  proceeding  to  the  trial  of  the  case, 
acting  after  the  manner  of  an  English  grand  jury.  This 
inquest  was  called  an  information,  and  it  differed  from 
the  proceedings  before  the  grand  jury  in  this  respect 
among  others,  that  it  was  conducted  by  the  same  tribunal 
which  subsequently  tried  the  offender.3 

In  England,  again,  where  a  criminal  proceeding  was 
treated  as  a  lawsuit  between  the  sovereign  and  the  accused, 
the  latter,  like  a  party  to  a  civil  suit,  was  not  allowed  to 
testify,  and  so  could  not  be  compelled  to  do  so.  In  France 

1  This  is  not  the  place,  of  course,  to  discuss  primitive  jurispru- 
dence or  procedure.     So  much  only  has  been  said  as  may  serve  to 
throw  light  on  Joan's  trial.     See  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.,  i.  609  et  seq. 
The  "appeal,"  or  private  criminal  suit,  brought  against  the  accused 
by  the  injured  person  or  his  representative,  lingered  in  England  until 
within  living  memory.     Ashford  v.  Thornton,  1  Barnewall  &  Alder- 
son's  Reports,  405. 

2  It  existed  originally,  of  course.      See  Esmein,  Hist,  de  la  pro- 
cedure criminelle  en  France,  43,  51. 

3  Esmein,  67,  81,  89,  103,  106,  108,  113. 


THE   BEGINNING   OF  THE  TRIAL.  259 

the  accused  was  naturally  the  most  important  witness,  in- 
asmuch as  he  knew  most  about  the  crime  to  be  investi- 
gated ;  and  so  he  was  examined,  not  only  at  the  trial,  but 
at  the  inquiry  which  preceded  it.  There  was  another  im- 
portant difference  between  the  English  system  and  the 
French.  In  England,  when  the  trial  was  had,  the  decision 
of  the  facts  was  left  to  the  jury,  a  changing  body  of  com- 
mon men,  not  experts  in  the  law,  but  men  who  made  up 
their  minds  about  each  case  as  it  arose,  without  elaborating 
any  theory  of  presumption  or  of  proof.  In  France  per- 
manent judges  passed  upon  facts  and  law  alike,  and,  being 
experts,  soon  framed  a  very  elaborate  and  technical  theory 
of  proof  which  rapidly  hardened  into  law.  This  theory  of 
proof  was  doubtless  intended  to  secure  the  accused  from 
unjust  condemnation  ;  in  fact  it  required  for  his  convic- 
tion proof  of  such  extraordinary  strength  that  it  hardly 
permitted  the  conviction  of  any  one  except  upon  his  own 
confession  in  court. 

In  France,  then,  the  courts  were  charged  with  the  dis- 
covery and  prosecution  of  criminals  as  well  as  with  their 
trial,  and  by  the  rules  they  had  established  were  almost 
forbidden  to  convict  a  criminal  except  upon  his  own  con- 
fession. In  this  system,  it  became  one  of  the  principal 
duties  of  a  judge  to  extort  a  confession  from  the  accused, 
by  gentle  means  if  possible,  otherwise  by  torture.  Wher- 
ever the  accused  is  permitted  to  arrest  justice  by  his  con- 
tumacy, torture  becomes  a  necessity.  This  was  true  even 
in  England  ;  the  English  law  did  not  permit  a  man  to  be 
tried  or  condemned  unless  he  pleaded  to  the  indictment, 
guilty  or  not  guilty,  and,  if  the  accused  was  contumacious 
and  would  not  plead  at  all,  even  the  English  law  provided 
that  he  should  be  tortured  until  he  spoke  or  died.1 

1  This  was  the  so-called  "  peine  forte  et  dure."  Though  a  man 
died  under  the  torture,  he  was  not  considered  guilty,  and  so  he  saved 
his  property  from  forfeiture.  Nowadays,  of  course,  silence  is  con- 
strued as  a  plea  of  not  guilty. 


260  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

What  lias  been  said  hitherto  concerning  French  pro- 
cedure applies  to  the  civil  tribunals  as  distinguished  from 
the  ecclesiastical,  but  the  theory  of  ecclesiastical  proced- 
ure was  the  same.  Doubtless  the  Holy  Office  was  more 
arbitrary  in  its  rules  than  the  courts  of  the  king,  and 
even  than  those  of  the  bishop ;  but  in  northern  France  it 
followed,  at  least  in  theory,  much  the  same  rules  of  evi- 
dence and  the  same  mechanical  doctrine  of  presumption. 
An  ecclesiastical  court,  however,  had  an  additional  reason 
for  seeking  the  confession  of  the  accused.  Only  by  his 
confession  could  be  secured  his  repentance,  and  so  his 
ultimate  salvation. 

Joan's  trial,  therefore,  may  be  divided  into  two  parts. 
The  first  was  the  inquest  or  informatio  proRparatoria,  a 
somewhat  rambling  investigation  into  the  facts  of  the  case, 
a  gathering  of  evidence  to  be  taken  down  at  the  time,  and 
used  subsequently  to  support  an  accusation  or  indictment 
which  had  not  yet  been  prepared.  This  evidence  thus 
taken  served  a  double  purpose ;  it  supplied  the  material 
out  of  which  the  indictment  was  framed,  and  then  was 
used  in  proof  of  the  same  indictment.  The  second  part 
of  the  trial  was  the  processus  ordinarius  or  trial  proper,  in 
which  the  evidence  gathered  at  the  preliminary  inquiry, 
with  some  additional  evidence  taken  at  the  trial  itself, 
was  examined  to  see  if  it  afforded  proof  technically  suffi- 
cient of  Joan's  guilt. 

On  Tuesday,  January  9,  1431,  only  six  days  after  the 
January  English  had  formally  delivered  to  him  their 
9, 1431.  prisoner,  Cauchon  opened  his  court  in  the  royal 
council  chamber  at  Rouen  for  the  trial  of  Joan  of  Arc. 
He  did  not  sit  alone  ;  Joan's  guilt  was  to  be  established,  not 
by  the  judgment  of  a  single  bishop,  but  by  that  of  many 
reverend  and  learned  men.  At  the  first  meeting  of  the 
court  some  eight  were  gathered,  two  abbots,  a  prior,  the 
treasurer  of  the  cathedral  of  Rouen  and  four  canons,  all 
of  them  the  holders  of  degrees  in  theology,  in  civil  or  in 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TRIAL.  261 

canon  law.  One  John  of  Estivet,  a  canon  of  Beauvais  and 
a  follower  of  his  bishop,  was  appointed  by  the  court  to  be 
the  prosecuting  attorney.1  John  of  La  Fontaine  became 
the  bishop's  commissary,  a  sort  of  vice-president  of  the 
tribunal.  William  Boisguillaume  and  William  Manchon 
were  made  notaries,  and  John  Massieu  sergeant,  the  three 
last  named  being  priests  who  lived  in  Rouen.  Cauchon 
exhorted  the  notaries  in  particular  to  serve  the  king  faith- 
fully, informing  them  that  he  intended  to  make  Joan's  a 
notable  trial.  To  the  tribunal  thus  constituted  were  read 
the  letters  written  by  the  University  of  Paris  and  by 
Cauchon  himself  concerning  the  delivery  of  Joan  and  the 
proceedings  against  her,  and  those  from  the  chapter  of 
Rouen  and  the  English  authorities  giving  the  bishop  juris- 
diction of  the  matter.  The  court  then  adjourned.2 

Four  days  later,  on  January  13,  it  met  again  in  Cau- 
chon's  housed      The  assessors  in  attendance  at 
one  meeting  and  another  differed  considerably ;   Feb., 
sometimes  more  than  forty  were  present,  some-   3 131' 
times  only  five  or  six.     Some  assessors  sat  but  once  or 
twice,  others  attended  pretty  regularly,  these  last  being 
generally  the  men  upon  whom  Cauchon  could  best  rely. 
All  were  ecclesiastics,  most  of  them  Normans,  a  few  from 
the  rest  of  France,  only  one  or  two  Englishmen.     Some 
did  their  work  reluctantly,  most  of  them  as  a  matter  of 
routine,  a  few  with  hearty  and  bitter  zeal. 

Before  proceeding  even  to  a  preliminary  inquest,  it 
was  advisable  to  produce  some  evidence  indicating  that 
Joan  was  a  person  reasonably  suspected  of  crime,  and  to 
show  this  Cauchon  caused  to  be  read  the  depositions  which 
had  been  taken  at  Domremy  and  thereabouts.  In  them 
was  found  very  little  discreditable  to  her;  indeed  the 
bishop  is  said  to  have  complained  bitterly  of  their  useless- 
ness,  and  to  have  reviled  the  man  who  brought  them, 

1  See  Esmein,  100  et  seq. 

2  P.  i.  5  et  seq.  «  P.  i.  27. 


262  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

refusing  to  pay  him  anything  for  his  trouble.  Thereat 
the  messenger  became  angry  in  his  turn,  and  went  about 
saying  that  the  depositions  contained  nothing  concerning 
Joan  that  he  would  not  be  willing  to  find  in  his  own 
sister.1  Defective  evidence  such  as  this  was  eked  out 
with  minutes  and  memoranda  much  more  satisfactory, 
drawn  from  the  rumors  and  reports  concerning  Joan,  from 
the  legends  current  among  English  and  Burgundian  sol- 
diers, and  from  the  strange  stories  which  for  more  than 
a  year  and  a  half  had  been  told  all  over  Europe.  This 
mass  of  hearsay  the  court  ordered  to  be  condensed  or 
digested  into  articles  from  which  it  might  determine  if 
there  was  sufficient  reason  for  subjecting  Joan  to  the  in- 
quest or  preliminary  inquiry  above  mentioned.  Cauchon 
chose  a  committee  for  the  purpose,  and  in  about  ten  days 
it  was  ready  to  report.2 

No  copy  has  been  preserved  of  these  articles.  The 
earliest  existing  formal  statement  of  the  case  against  Joan 
is  one  which  was  framed  after  she  had  been  examined 
many  days,  and  this  was  based  largely  upon  the  answers 
she  had  given.  In  order  to  understand  the  course  of  her 
long  examination,  however,  we  must  know  as  definitely 
as  possible  what  were  the  matters  concerning  which  at 
the  outset  of  the  trial  the  judges  expected  to  find  her 
guilty.  These  were  the  matters  to  which  they  would 
address  their  questions,  in  the  hope  of  getting  from  her 
either  a  direct  confession  or  such  admissions  as  would 
amount  to  one. 

First  and  principally  it  was  charged  that  Joan  had  had 
dealings  with  familiar  spirits.  That  she  had  dealt  with 
some  sort  of  spirits  was  plain  to  every  ori^,  and  there  was 
doubt  only  concerning  their  character.3  \Joan  asserted 

1  P.  ii.  381 ;  iii.  191,  Moreau. 

2  P.  i.  28. 

3  That  she  was  a  mere  mountebank,  or  completely  self-deceived, 
were  improbable  suppositions  in  the  fifteenth  century. 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TRIAL.  263 

that  they  were  saints ;  her  enemies  quite  naturally  be- 
lieved them  to  be  devils,  and  for  their  belief  adduced 
several  reasons.  Magic  was  not  unknown  in  Domremy ; 
the  depositions,  even  if  they  were  otherwise  worthless, 
contained  stories  of  the  fairy  tree  and  of  the  magic 
fountain,  —  stories  which  might  easily  be  exaggerated  and 
applied  to  Joan.  Again,  Joan  had  apparently  ascribed 
supernatural  virtue  to  a  particular  sword  and  banner, 
and  there  were  reports  that  she  had  used  secret  charms, 
and  had  promised  to  her  soldiers  safety  in  the  face  of  the 
enemy.  Other  acts  were  even  more  plainly  culpable. 
Not  only  had  she  entered  upon  an  unwomanly  career,  and 
practiced  all  sorts  of  unwomanly  exercises,  but  she  had 
persistently  worn  men's  clothes,  a  thing  absolutely  forbid- 
den by  Holy  Scripture  and  the  councils  of  the  church. 
These  were  grave  offenses  in  themselves,  and  they  made 
Joan's  boast  of  saintly  guidance  seem  almost  absurd. 
Moreover,  she  had  attacked  Paris  on  the  feast  of  the 
Annunciation ;  she  had  attempted  her  own  life  at  Beau- 
revoir,  as  a  witch  would  do,  instead  of  bearing  her  im- 
prisonment patiently,  like  a  good  Christian ;  she  had 
allowed  common  people  to  worship  her ;  she  had  stolen 
a  bishop's  horse ;  she  had  pretended  to  work  miracles. 
To  men  who  do  not  believe  in  witchcraft,  all  this  is  a 
farrago  of  irrelevant  nonsense,  but,  if  an  undoubting 
belief  in  witchcraft  is  assumed,  then  this  easily  credited 
mixture  of  truth  and  falsehood  is  quite  suspicious  enough 
to  provoke  judicial  inquiry.  During  the  trial  one  or  two 
other  causes  of  suspicion  were  found,  and  added  to  the 
charges. 

About  a  month  was  spent  in  preparation.  The  first 
articles  were  revised  and  questions  were  prepared  by 
the  commissary,  acting  under  the  general  direction  of 
Cauchon,  who  was  busy  otherwise.  On  February  19  the 
articles  were  approved,  and  a  formal  summons  was  issued 
to  Joan,  but  there  was  a  hitch  in  the  proceedings,  appar- 


264  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

ently  unexpected.  From  the  beginning  it  had  been  in- 
tended that  a  representative  of  the  Inquisition  should  sit 
in  Cauchon's  tribunal.  The  inquisitor-general  of  France, 
however,  the  Dominican  John  Graverent,  was  busy  at  the 
trial  of  a  burgher  of  St.  L6,  and  could  not  attend  Joan's 
trial  himself.1  His  vicar  for  the  diocese  of  Rouen,  the 
prior  John  Lemaitre,  was  duly  summoned  by  Cauchon, 
but  hesitated  at  first,  and  then  refused  to  sit  with  the 
bishop,  alleging  a  want  of  jurisdiction.  He  was  commis- 
sioned to  act,  as  he  said,  only  within  the  diocese  of  Rouen ; 
geographically,  Joan's  trial  was  held  in  that  diocese,  but 
juridically  it  was  held  in  the  diocese  of  Beauvais,  to  which 
his  authority  did  not  extend.  Probably  he  was  unwilling 
to  take  part  in  the  trial.2 

Cauchon  did  not  assent  to  the  vicar's  opinion  concern- 
ing the  limits  of  his  authority,  but  tried  first  to  overrule 
him,  and  then  by  promising  to  write  to  the  inquisitor- 
general  for  a  broader  commission  sought  to  persuade  him 
to  become  a  member  of  the  court.  Lemaitre  replied  that 
for  the  clearing  of  his  own  conscience,  and  to  insure  the 
validity  of  the  proceedings,  he  preferred  not  to  meddle  in 
any  matter  without  due  authority.  So  far  as  in  him  lay, 
he  authorized  Cauchon  to  proceed.  Having  excused  him- 
self in  this  cautious  manner  he  withdrew.  For  the  first 
time  the  bishop  met  with  a  passive  opposition,  afterwards 
shown  by  many  others  who  were  concerned  in  the  trial. 

With  or  without  the  inquisitor,  Cauchon  determined 
F  b  21  ^°  S°  f°rwai%d»  and,  in  the  royal  chapel  of  the 
i*3!-  castle,  on  Wednesday,  February  21, 1431,  he  held 
the  first  public  session  of  the  court.  Forty-three  assessors 
attended.  The  prosecuting  attorney,  Estivet,  stood  up 
and  read  the  warrant  summoning  Joan  to  appear,  and 
the  certificate  3  of  the  sergeant  who  had  served  the  process 

1  Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  80. 

2  P.  i.  33. 

8  In  English  legal  terminology,  the  return. 


THE   BEGINNING    OF   THE   TRIAL.  265 

upon  her.  This  certificate  stated  that  Joan  would  will- 
ingly appear  before  the  bishop,  but  had  begged  that  some 
of  her  judges  might  be  taken  from  the  French  party,  and 
also  that  she  might  be  allowed  to  hear  mass  before  she 
was  brought  into  court.  Thereupon  Cauchon  explained 
to  his  assessors  that  "  considering  the  crimes  of  which  the 
said  woman  was  accused,  and  the  impropriety  of  the  dress 
which  she  persisted  in  wearing,"  he  had  forbidden  her  to 
hear  mass.  He  had  acted  thus,  as  he  said,  by  the  counsel 
of  notable  doctors ;  but  upon  this  question  he  did  not  ask 
the  advice  or  consent  of  his  assessors,  perhaps  because 
he  feared  to  risk  so  important  a  matter  to  the  vote  of  so 
large  and  so  mixed  a  body.1  This  denial  of  spiritual 
comfort,  which  had  continued  nearly  three  months,  as  well 
as  Joan's  bodily  and  mental  distress,  was  relied  upon  to 
break  her  stubborn  will. 

After  this  introduction,  Joan  was  brought  into  court, 
her  irons  having  been  removed  for  the  occasion.  For  the 
first  time  in  many  weeks,  probably,  she  saw  the  full  light 
of  day.2  Pale  and  shabby  from  her  nine  months'  con- 
finement,3 the  girl  of  nineteen  faced  the  abbots,  priors, 
canons,  doctors,  and  bachelors  of  law  and  theology,  know- 
ing that  all  were  her  natural  enemies.  By  nature  alto- 
gether truthful,  wise  enough  or  simple  enough  to  tell  the 
whole  truth  in  answering  all  ordinary  questions,  she  yet 
understood  that  she  did  not  appear  before  these  men  in 
order  to  give  a  complete  history  of  herself,  but  to  stand 
for  her  life  and  the  holiness  of  her  mission.  The  ques- 

1  P.  i.  40  et  seq. 

2  See  P.  ii.  16,  where  Massieu  tells  how  Estivet  threatened  him 
with  imprisonment  in  a  tower  where  he  could  see  neither  the  sun 
nor  moon  for  a  month.     Massieu's  offense  had  been  friendliness  to 
Joan. 

3  Probably  the  dress  she  wore  when  taken  at  Compiegne,  without 
the  armor  and  mantle.     It  is  unlikely  that  either  Luxemburg  or  the 
English  so  far  humored  her  sinful  practices  as  to  supply  her  with 
men's  clothes. 


266  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

tions  put  to  her  she  considered  shrewdly,  and  by  adroit- 
ness, by  good  humor,  by  wit,  or  by  sayings  in  which  all 
these  were  combined  in  a  perfect  expression  of  faith  in 
the  God  she  served,  she  avoided  many  of  the  traps  which 
her  examiners  laid  for  her.  Considered  merely  as  an 
intellectual  exercise,  her  defense  is  wonderful,  made,  as  it 
was,  without  help  of  an  advocate.  That  it  was  made  with- 
out help,  Joan  would  have  utterly  denied.  Many  times  a 
day  she  sought  and  received  the  counsel  of  her  voices : 
at  noontime  while  the  court  took  a  recess,  at  evening  or 
waking  in  the  morning,  now  and  then  even  in  the  court- 
room. Sometimes  she  had  only  the  sense  of  their  pres- 
ence, sometimes  they  advised  her  what  to  say,  often  they 
told  her  to  "  answer  boldly,  and  that  God  would  help  her." 

After  a  seat  had  been  given  her,  Cauchon  rehearsed 
the  story  of  her  capture  and  warned  her  to  speak  the 
truth  without  wile  or  subterfuge.  Having  thus  admon- 
ished her  charitably,  as  he  phrased  it,  he  next  directed 
that  she  be  sworn  on  the  Evangelists  to  answer  truly  the 
questions  put  to  her.  She  hesitated,  knowing  that  there 
were  questions  which  she  was  not  ready  to  answer,  and 
fearing  that  if  once  she  were  sworn,  she  must  tell  every- 
thing. "  I  do  not  know  what  you  wish  to  ask  me  about," 
she  said.  "  You  may  ask  me  things  that  I  will  not  tell 
you."  Cauchon  asked  her  if  she  would  answer  in  all 
matters  of  religion.1  Regarding  her  father  and  mother, 
and  her  deeds  since  she  came  into  France,  Joan  answered 
that  she  would  swear  to  testify,  but  her?  revelations  from 
God  she  had  told  only  to- Charles  her  kiig.  These  things 
she  would  not  reveal  though  they  should^  cut  off  her  head, 
for  her  voices  had  forbidden  her  to  speak ;  within  a  week, 
however,  she  might  receive  permission.2 

After  some  further  parley  and  much  confusion  in  the 
court,  Cauchon  yielded  for  the  time,  and  Joan  knelt 
down,  laid  both  her  hands  upon  a  missal,  and  took  the 

1  "Fidei  materiam  concernentibus."  2  P.  i.  45. 


THE    BEGINNING    OF    THE    TRIAL.  267 

oath  in  the  form  she  had  chosen.  Then  she  answered 
readily  a  number  of  questions  about  her  birthplace,  her 
age,  her  parents  and  godparents.  Her  religious  teach- 
ing, she  told  her  judges,  had  been  given  her  by  her 
mother,  who  had  taught  her  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Ave 
Maria,  and  the  Creed.  Following  the  practice  of  the 
Inquisition,1  Cauchon  bade  her  say  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
Joan  answered  that  she  would  gladly  do  so  if  the  bishop 
would  hear  her  in  confession.  Cauchon  insisted  that  the 
prayer  should  be  said  at  once,  and  Joan  persistently  re- 
fused. Possibly  she  objected  to  rattling  off  the  sacred 
words  merely  to  gratify  what  she  considered  her  judge's 
whim,  but  she  had  a  deeper  reason  for  her  refusal.  By 
offering  to  say  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  confession,  she  hoped 
to  obtain  a  confessor,  one  of  the  spiritual  privileges  of 
which  she  had  been  deprived.  She  had  triumphed,  at 
least  for  the  moment,  in  the  matter  of  the  oath,  and  as 
her  voices  had  told  her  to  answer  boldly,  she  was  ready 
to  do  so.  The  hearing  had  lasted  for  some  time,  and 
Cauchon  adjourned  it  to  the  next  day. 

Before  dismissing  his  prisoner,  however,  he  formally 
warned  her,  under  penalty  of  being  taken  for  a  convicted 
heretic,  not  to  withdraw  from  the  prison  assigned  to  her 
without  his  leave.  Joan  answered  that  she  would  not  be 
bound  by  his  command,  and  she  added  that,:  if  she  should 
escape,  no  one  could  blame  her  for  breaking  her  parole, 
inasmuch  as  she  had  never  given  it.  She  qomplaiued  of 
being  kept  in  chains.  The  bishop  said  that  this  was 
necessary  for  her  safe-keeping,  and  that  shej  had  already 
tried  to  escape.  "  It  is  true  that  I  wished  to  get  away, 
and  still  wish  it,"  she  answered,  "  as  any  prisoner  may 
rightfully  do."  2 

Ordinarily,  a  person  tried  before  an  ecclesiastical  court 
was  kept  in  an  ecclesiastical  prison,  that  is  to  say,  in  one 
controlled  by  the  court  before  which  the  case  was  tried. 
1  See  Taxil,  Le  Martyre  de  J.,  94.  2  P.  i.  47. 


268  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

The  bishop  of  Beauvais  had  no  prison  in  Rouen,  and  this 
may  have  been  his  excuse  for  keeping  Joan  in  a  secular 
prison ;  the  real  reason  for  her  exceptional  treatment, 
however,  was  quite  different.  In  risking  her  trial  before 
an  ecclesiastical  court,  the  English  had  done  all  they 
dared,  and  they  had  expressly  reserved  the  right  to  deal 
with  her  as  they  chose,  in  case  she  should  be  acquitted. 
To  trust  her  to  a  French  ecclesiastical  jailer  was  out  of 
the  question,  and  throughout  the  trial  she  was  kept  in  the 
custody  of  English  laymen.  In  an  ecclesiastical  prison, 
solitary  confinement  in  chains  would  probably  have  been 
directed  by  Cauchon,  but  from  a  certain  kind  of  outrage 
Joan  would  have  been  secure.  To  give  his  action  the 
appearance  of  regularity,  Cauchon  went  through  the  form 
of  swearing  the  English  jailers  to  keep  her  well  and 
faithfully,  without  letting  her  speak  to  any  one.  She 
was  then  led  back  to  her  chamber. 

There  had  been  so  much  confusion  in  the  chapel,  and 
Joan  had  been  interrupted  so  often  and  by  so  many  peo- 
ple, that  the  notary  Manchon  refused  to  act  further  un- 
less the  proceedings  were  conducted  in  more  orderly  fash- 
ion. He  was  an  honest  and  painstaking  clerk,  scrupulous 
in  reporting  Joan's  answers  correctly,  and  he  disapproved 
of  the  unfair  record  made  by  certain  clerks  in  the  employ 
of  the  English  council,  who  had  written  down  what  they 
pleased.  Cauchon  had  not  yet  begun  to  doubt  that  Joan 
could  be  condemned  on  a  fair  hearing,  and  the  place  of 
her  trial  was  accordingly  changed  to  a  retiring-room  near 
the  great  hall  of  the  castle.  Two  English  guards  kept 
the  door.1 

At  about  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning  of  February  22 

Feb.  22,      Joan  was  brought  to  this  place,  fasting,  for  it  was 

t31'          Lent.    There  was  another  wrangle  over  the  form 

of  the  oath,  with  the  same  result  as  before.     Then  John 

1  P.  iii.  135,  Manchon. 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TRIAL.  269 

Beaupe're,1  a  learned  doctor  of  theology,  sent  from  the 
University  of  Paris,  took  up  Joan's  examination,  and 
began  by  exhorting  her  to  tell  the  truth,  in  whatever 
form  she  had  taken  the  oath.  "  You  may  well  ask  me 
one  thing  about  which  I  will  tell  you  the  truth,  and  an- 
other thing  about  which  I  will  not  tell  you  at  all,"  Joan 
answered.  "  If  you  were  well  informed  about  me,  you 
ought  to  wish  me  out  of  your  hands.  I  have  done  no- 
thing except  by  revelation."  2 

Beaupere  asked  about  her  life  as  a  child,  and  she  an- 
swered freely.  In  sewing  and  in  spinning  she  was  not 
afraid  to  match  herself  against  any  woman  in  Rouen. 
He  asked  her  how  often  she  had  confessed  and  com- 
municated; she  answered  as  particularly  as  she  could, 
and  when  he  pressed  her  further,  told  him  to  pass  to  the 
next  question.  Then  he  came  to  her  visions,  and  she  told 
him  the  time  and  place  of  their  first  appearance. 

Desiring  to  show  that  the  spirits  which  had  spoken  to 
Joan  were  evil,  Beaupere  asked  what  they  had  taught  her 
for  her  soul's  sake.  She  answered  that  they  had  told  her 
to  conduct  herself  well  and  to  go  often  to  church.  Beau- 
pere wished  to  know  the  manner  and  form  of  their  ap- 
pearance, but  for  the  time  Joan  refused  to  tell  him.  She 
told  him  at  some  length  of  her  visits  to  Baudricourt  and 
to  the  duke  of  Lorraine,  and  of  her  journey  to  Chinon. 
She  was  shown  the  letters  she  had  written  to  the  Eng- 
lish captains  before  Orleans,  and  she  acknowledged  them, 
though  she  said  that  her  language  had  been  slightly 
changed.  In  fact,  this  had  probably  been  done  by  the 
French  scribes  who  wrote  down  her  words.3 

1  Beaurepaire,  Notes  sur  les  juges  et  les  assesseurs  du  proces  de  con- 
damnation  de  J.,  27. 

2  P.  i.  61. 

3  P.  i.  52  et  seq.     The  alterations  which  she  specified  in  the  letters 
are  found  in  copies  of  them  which  never  were  in  English  or  Burgun- 
dian  hands.    The  most  important  change  is  the  substitution  of  "  Yield 


270  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

She  told  Beaupere  that  at  Chinon  she  had  known  the 
king  by  the  help  of  her  voices.  At  once  he  pressed  her 
for  details,  asking  whether  there  had  been  a  miraculous 
light  in  the  place  or  an  angel  over  the  king's  head,  and 
what  sort  of  revelations  Charles  had  had  concerning  her. 
Joan  suggested  that  he  should  send  to  the  king,  from 
whom,  doubtless,  he  could  get  an  answer.  This,  naturally, 
did  not  satisfy  Beaupere,  and  he  urged  her  further. 
Provoked  by  his  persistence,  Joan  told  him  that  the  men 
of  her  party  knew  well  that  the  voice  was  sent  from  God, 
and  that  they  had  seen  and  heard  the  voice :  1  the  king 
and  some  others  had  seen  the  voice  2  when  it  came,  among 
them  Charles  of  Bourbon  and  two  or  three  more.  Led 
on  by  the  stupid  unbelief  of  her  questioners,  Joan  was 
beginning  to  play  boldly  upon  words,  and,  in  talking  of 
her  coming  to  Charles,  to  speak  of  herself  as  the  angel 
and  the  voice.  Beaupere  took  up  another  accusation, 
that  of  having  attacked  Paris  on  a  feast  day,  but  he  had 
hardly  opened  the  matter  when  the  court  adjourned. 

After  a  day's  notice,  on  Saturday,  February  24,  the 
Feb.  24  court  assembled  at  the  usual  hour,  with  a  larger 
1431>  body  of  assessors  than  before.  Again  Cauchon 
tried  to  make  Joan  take  the  oath  without  reservation, 
and  again  she  refused.  "  Look  well  to  what  you  are  say- 
ing, namely,  that  you  are  my  judge,"  she  warned  him, 
"  for  in  this  you  take  a  great  burden  on  yourself,  and  you 

yourself  to  the  Maid,"  as  it  stands  in  all  the  texts,  for  "  Yield  yourself 
to  the  king,"  as  Joan  said  she  dictated  it.  See  P.  i.  65  ;  iv.  215,  306  ; 
v.  95. 

1  "  Viderunt  et  cognoverunt  ipsam  vocem."     P.  i.  57. 

2  "  Audiverunt  et  viderunt  voces  venientes  ad  ipsam  Johannam." 
P.  i.  57.     This  implies  that  Bourbon  and  others  saw  St.  Catherine 
and  St.  Margaret  ;  but  it  is  probable  that  the  clerks,  who  did  not  un- 
derstand Joan's  equivocation,  failed  to  catch  her  exact  words.     That 
the  courtiers  did  not  believe  that  they  saw  anything  miraculous  or 
extraordinary  is  made  pretty  plain  by  the  fact  that  nothing  of  the 
sort  was  alleged  or  testified  to  at  Joan's  second  trial. 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TKIAL.  271 

burden  me  too  heavily."  She  told  the  judges  that  she 
was  sent  by  God  and  had  no  business  in  Rouen,  and 
she  begged  them  to  send  her  back  to  God,  from  whom 
she  had  come.  At  last  she  said  that  she  was  ready  to 
tell  the  truth  in  whatever  concerned  the  case,  and  in  this 
manner  she  was  sworn.1 

Beaupere  began  the  examination  by  asking  Joan  when 
she  had  last  eaten,  hoping,  apparently,  to  show  that  she 
had  not  kept  Lent ;  but  she  told  him  that  she  had  eaten 
nothing  since  the  afternoon  of  the  day  before.  Then  he 
asked  when  she  had  last  heard  her  voices.  "  Both  yester- 
day and  to-day,"  she  answered.  They  had  come  to  her 
many  times  a  day,  and  on  Friday  morning  had  roused 
her  from  sleep.  Trying  to  support  his  theory  of  an  evil 
spirit,  Beaupere  asked  if  she  had  given  thanks  to  the  voice, 
and  had  gone  down  on  her  kness  to  it ;  he  forgot  that  she 
was  so  chained  that  she  could  not  kneel.  Without  no- 
ticing his  mistake,  Joan  said  simply  that  she  had  given 
thanks,  sitting  up  in  bed  with  joined  hands ;  she  had 
already  asked  for  help,  and  she  had  been  told  to  answer 
boldly.  Beaupere  tried  to  discover  the  precise  language 
of  the  voices,  but  she  would  not,  and,  indeed,  probably 
could  not  tell  him.  Suddenly  she  turned  upon  Cauchon  : 
"  You  say  that  you  are  my  judge.  Have  a  care  what  you 
do,  for  truly  I  am  sent  from  God,  and  you  put  yourself 
in  great  peril."  2 

She  had  said  that  she  feared  she  might  displease  her 
voices  if  she  should  answer  all  his  questions,  and  Beau- 
pere ingeniously  inquired  if  God  would  be  displeased  with 
her  for  telling  the  truth.  "  My  voices  have  told  me  to 
say  some  things  to  the  king  and  not  to  you.  This  very 
night  they  have  told  me  many  things  for  his  advantage, 
which  I  wish  he  knew  even  now,  though  I  were  to  drink 
no  wine  for  it  until  Easter."  Beaupere  suggested  that 
she  should  command  the  voice  to  carry  the  message  to 
1  P.  i.  60,  61.  2  P.  i.  62. 


272  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

the  king.  Joan  answered  that  the  voice  would  not  obey 
her  unless  this  were  God's  will.  "  If  it  pleased  God, 
He  himself  could  cause  the  revelation  to  be  made  to  the 
king,  whereat  I  should  be  much  pleased."  When  asked 
why  the  voice  did  not  speak  to  the  king  as  it  used  to  do 
when  Joan  was  with  him,1  she  said  that  this  might  not 
be  God's  will ;  without  His  grace,  she  added,  she  should 
not  know  what  to  do.  After  another  vain  attempt  to 
discover  how  the  voices  appeared  to  her,  the  wily  doctor 
asked  if  she  knew  that  she  was  in  the  grace  of  God. 
This  may  well  have  been  a  question  ordinarily  put  to  an 
obstinate  heretic,  for,  if  the  accused  answered  yes,  he 
manifested  an  unholy  presumption,  while,  if  he  answered 
no,  his  guilt  stood  confessed.  One  of  the  assessors  in- 
terrupted, saying  it  was  not  a  fair  question  to  put  to 
a  girl,  but  Cauchon  told  him  he  had  better  hold  his 
tongue.2  "  May  God  bring  me  into  His  grace  if  I  am 
not  in  it ;  if  I  am  in  it,  may  He  keep  me  there,"  3  Joan 
answered.  "  If  I  knew  that  I  was  not  in  God's  grace, 
I  should  be  the  sorriest  being  in  the  world.4  If  I  were 
living  in  sin,  I  think  the  voice  would  not  come  to  me, 
and  I  wish  that  every  one  understood  it  as  well  as 
I  do."5 

Beaupere  next  inquired  about  her  life  at  Domremy  and 
the  state  of  political  parties  in  the  neighborhood,  and  pres- 
ently asked  if  her  voices  had  told  her  to  hate  the  Burgun- 

1  The  question  indicates  that  Joan's  equivocation  was  misleading 
her  judges. 

2  P.  ii.  367,  Fabre. 

8  The  Latin  translation  of  the  original  French  minute  reads  :  "  Si 
ego  non  sim,  Deus  ponat  me,  et  si  ego  sim,  Deus  me  teneat  in  ilia." 
I  suggest  that  the  original  probably  read  :  "  Si  je  ne  suis  pas,  Dieu 
m'y  mette,  et  si  je  suis,  Dieu  m'y  tienne."  "  Mettre  "  is  translated 
"ponere"  (see  pp.  98,  107,  126,  167,  168,  183);  "tenir"  is  trans- 
lated "tenere"  (see  pp.  104,  117,  141,  169,  177). 

4  "  Ego  essem  magis  doleus  de  toto  muudo." 

6  P.  i.  65. 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TRIAL.  273 

dians.  Joan  perceived  the  trap  he  thus  laid  for  her,  but 
admitted  that  she  had  not  loved  the  Burgundians  after 
learning  that  her  voices  were  on  Charles's  side.  Had  she 
a  firm  intention  of  attacking  the  Burgundians,  the  exam- 
iner inquired.  "  I  had  a  firm  desire  that  my  king  should 
have  his  kingdom,"  Joan  replied.  The  doctor  then  passed 
to  the  fairy  tree  and  to  the  fountain,  and  Joan  answered 
all  his  questions  readily.  There  was  a  fountain  near  the 
village,  the  waters  of  which  sick  people  used  to  drink,  but 
she  did  not  know  if  they  were  cured.  There  was  a  tree, 
about  which  strange  stories  were  told  ;  whether  they  were 
true  or  not  she  could  not  pretend  to  say.  She  had  hung 
garlands  on  its  branches,  like  other  girls  ;  sometimes,  per- 
haps, she  had  danced  about  it  with  the  boys  of  the  village, 
but  usually  she  preferred  singing  to  dancing.  There  was 
also  a  grove  less  than  half  a  league  from  her  father's 
house.  The  neighbors  had  said  that  she  took  up  her  mis- 
sion in  this  grove,  but  they  had  been  mistaken.  As  to 
the  fairy  stories  told  about  the  grove,  she  did  not  believe 
them. 

Having  failed  to  prove  that  Joan  had  practiced  magic 
in  her  youth,  the  examiner  came  to  the  wearing  of  men's 
clothes,  an  offense  which  she  certainly  had  committed. 
"  Are  you  willing  to  wear  a  woman's  dress  ? "  he  asked. 
"  Give  me  one,"  Joan  answered,  "  I  will  take  it  and  go 
away ;  unless  I  may  go  away  I  will  not  take  it.  I  am 
content  with  this  dress,  since  it  pleases  God  that  I  should 
use  it." 

The  strain  to  which  Joan  was  subjected  by  these  exam- 
inations we  do  not  fully  comprehend,  unless  we 
bear  constantly  in  mind  the  life  which  the  young   March, 
girl  was  leading  outside  the  court-room.      She 
kept  faithfully  the  fasts  of  the  church,  and,  throughout 
Lent,  from  the  afternoon  of  one  day  until  the  afternoon 
of  the  next  she  ate  nothing.     During  these  examinations, 
therefore,  she  was  faint  with  hunger ;  indeed,  her  ques- 


274  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

tioners  themselves  were  often  worn  out.  If  one  became 
tired,  however,  another  was  ready  to  take  his  place,  and 
several  substitutes  were  provided  for  Beaupere.1  Many 
times,  in  spite  of  the  notary's  protest,  these  deputies  did 
not  wait  for  Beaupere's  withdrawal,  but  hurled  at  Joan 
half  a  dozen  questions  at  once,  until  she  was  obliged  to 
say  with  a  smile,  "  My  good  lords,  one  of  you  at  a  time."  2 
After  she  had  undergone  this  exercise  for  three  or  four 
hours,  she  was  taken  back  to  her  prison,  her  chains,  and 
her  brutal  keepers.  In  walking  between  her  cell  and  the 
court-room,  she  passed  in  front  of  the  chapel  of  the  castle, 
and  the  sergeant  used  to  let  her  stop  a  moment  in  sight 
of  the  altar,  and  say  a  prayer.  When  the  prosecuting  at- 
torney learned  this,  he  was  furious,  and  threatened  the 
officer  :  "  How  dare  you  let  that  cursed  wench  go  near  a 
church  ?  If  you  do  it  again,  I  will  put  you  in  a  tower 
where  for  a  month  you  shall  see  neither  sun  nor  moon." 
Despite  his  orders,  Joan  could  still  glance  in  passing  at  the 
place  where  the  host  was  kept,  and  Estivet  would  therefore 
block  up  the  door  with  his  body  so  that  she  could  see 
nothing.  No  one  came  to  her  chamber,  except  those  who 
had  permission  from  Cauchon  or  the  English.  Now  and 
then  some  burgher  got  a  peep  at  her  to  gratify  his  curios- 
ity,3 or  some  noble  was  admitted  to  stare  at  her  or  to  tease 
her.  One  day  John  of  Luxemburg,  who  happened  to  be 
in  Rouen,  went  to  visit  her,  along  with  his  brother  the 
bishop,  the  English  earls  of  Warwick  and  Stafford,  and 
the  squire  Haimond  of  Macy. 

"  Joan,  I  am  come  to  ransom  you,  if  you  will  promise 
not  to  fight  against  us  any  more,"  said  the  count  in  rather 
cruel  jest. 

"  In  God's  name,  you  are  only  laughing  at  me,"  Joan 
answered,  "  for  I  know  well  that  you  have  neither  the  will 
nor  the  power."  Luxemburg  insisted,  and  at  last  Joan 

1  P.  ii.  16,  Massieu  ;  iii.  178,  Lemaire  ;  180,  Cusquel. 

2  P.  iii.  155,  Massieu.  3  See  P.  iii.  200,  Daron. 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE   TRIAL.  275 

said,  "  I  know  well  that  these  English  will  kill  me,  think- 
ing to  get  the  kingdom  of  France  after  my  death,  but, 
though  they  were  a  hundred  thousand  goddams  more  than 
they  now  are,  they  shall  not  have  the  kingdom."  Staf- 
ford was  so  angry  at  Joan's  words  that  he  drew  his 
dagger  to  stab  her,  but  Warwick  checked  him.1 

Though  she  was  harassed  in  this  fashion,  Joan's  an- 
swers still  gave  Cauchon  little  satisfaction.  "  Let  no 
one  approach  the  heretic,"  so  read  a  handbook  of  the  In- 
quisition, "unless  it  be  from  time  to  time  two  faithful 
and  skillful  persons,  who  shall  act  as  if  they  had  pity  on 
him,  and  shall  warn  him  to  save  himself  by  confessing 
his  errors,  promising  him,  if  he  does  so,  that  he  shall  not 
be  burned ;  for  fear  of  death  and  hope  of  life  sometimes 
soften  a  heart  which  cannot  otherwise  be  touched."2 
A  faithful  and  skillful  person  of  the  sort  required  was 
found  in  Nicholas  Loiseleur,  a  canon  of  Chartres  and  of 
Rouen,  and  an  intimate  friend  of  Cauchon.3  Dressed  as 
a  layman,  and  acting  under  the  directions  of  Cauchon 
and  Warwick,  he  went  into  Joan's  cell  and  represented 
himself  to  be  a  man  from  Lorraine,  friendly  to  the  girl 
and  to  the  cause  of  France.  On  some  excuse  the  warders 
withdrew,  and  left  them  together.  There  was  no  real 
privacy.  Seated  in  a  closet  near  by,  which  was  built  for 
the  purpose,  the  notary  Manchon  was  ordered  to  take 
down  Joan's  words,  for  use  against  her  in  the  trial. 
Though  commanded  by  the  bishop  and  the  earl,  the 
notary  refused  to  obey,  saying  that  he  would  record  only 
the  testimony  given  in  court.  For  this  reason  or  for  some 
other,  the  part  of  the  plan  which  depended  upon  him  was 
given  up,  but  Loiseleur  continued  to  visit  Joan,  and  to 
express  his  sympathy  for  her  troubles.  For  months  she 
had  not  heard  a  kind  word,  and  her  shrewdness  was  de- 

1  P.  iii.  121,  Macy. 

2  See  Quicherat,  Ap.  nouv.,  131. 

8  Beaurepaire,  Notes  sur  les  juges,  75  ;  P.  ii.  10. 


276  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

ceived.  To  Loiseleur  she  said  much  that  she  never  would 
have  told  her  judges.  When  the  examiners  wished  to 
question  Joan  on  any  matter,  Loiseleur  would  talk  it  over 
with  her  in  the  afternoon  or  evening,  and  upon  what  she 
said  to  him  Beaupere  would  frame  the  questions  to  be 
asked  on  the  next  morning.1 

1  P.  ii.  10, 342  ;  iii.  140,  Manchon  ;  161,  Boisguillaurae  ;  60,  Cour- 
celles.  In  his  Recherches,  p.  107  et  seq.,  M.  Beaurepaire  points  out 
discrepancies  in  the  accounts  of  Mauchon  and  Boisguillaume,  and 
doubts  the  whole  story.  These  discrepancies  seem  to  me  rather  un- 
important, and  fully  explicable  by  the  lapse  of  time  and  the  great 
age  of  Boisguillaume.  The  main  fact  is  established  by  the  testimony 
of  Courcelles,  a  well  informed  and  unimpeachable  witness. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

JOAN'S   EXAMINATION. 

AFTER  two  days'  interval,  on  February  27  Joan  was 
brought  into  court  for  the  fourth  time.  There  Feb.  27, 
was  the  usual  fruitless  wrangle  over  the  form  of  1431> 
her  oath,  and  then  Beaupere  asked  about  her  health  during 
the  last  three  days,  perhaps  because  he  hoped  that  her 
obstinacy  was  weakening  under  the  constant  strain,  per- 
haps because  he  was  afraid  that  she  would  break  down 
entirely,  and  die  unconvicted  on  his  hands,  an  end  of  the 
proceedings  most  undesirable.  With  natural  impatience 
Joan  answered,  "You  can  see  for  yourself  how  I  am;  I 
am  as  well  as  I  can  be."  1 

The  examiner  then  spent  some  time  in  a  vain  attempt 
to  discover  precisely  how  Joan's  voices  appeared  to  her. 
At  length,  when  he  asked  whether  the  voice  was  that  of 
an  angel,  of  a  saint,  or  of  God  himself,  Joan  yielded 
so  far  as  to  tell  him  that  the  voices  were  those  of  St. 
Catherine  and  St.  Margaret.  "  And  their  faces  were 
crowned  with  beautiful  crowns,  very  rich  and  precious," 
she  added.  "  This  much  I  have  God's  leave  to  tell  you. 
If  you  doubt  what  I  say,  send  to  Poitiers,  where  I  have 
been  examined  already." 

At  once  Beaupere  began  a  series  of  questions  which 
seemed  to  Joan  utterly  trivial :  did  the  saints  speak  one 
after  another,  or  both  at  once ;  how  did  Joan  know  them 
apart ;  did  they  wear  the  same  sort  of  clothes ;  were  they 
of  the  same  age  ?  Sometimes  Joan  referred  him  to  her 

1  P.  i.  70.  "  Ego  me  habui  quantum  melius  potui "  (Je  me  suis 
portee  le  mieux  quefaipu  ?). 


278  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

examination  at  Poitiers,  sometimes  she  said  that  she  had 
not  leave  to  answer  him.  Probably  she  knew  little  of  the 
petty  matters  which  he  asked  her  about ;  once,  when  he 
spoke  of  St.  Michael's  voice,  she  replied,  "  I  said  nothing 
to  you  about  his  voice.  I  spoke  of  the  great  comfort 
he  had  given  me."  1 

Beaupere  asked  if  there  had  been  an  angel  above 
Charles's  head  when  she  first  saw  the  king  at  Chinon. 
Joan  lost  her  patience :  "  By  the  blessed  Mary,  I  don't 
know  if  he  was  there,"  she  said.  "  I  did  not  see  him." 
"Was  there  a  light?  "asked  the  doctor.  "There  were 
more  than  three  hundred  soldiers,  and  about  fifty  torches," 
Joan  answered,  "  and  that  without  counting  the  spiritual 
light.  Rarely  do  I  have  revelations  without  light,"  she 
added.2 

By  the  examiner's  request  she  told  the  story  of  the 
sword  found  at  St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois.  She  had  not 
caused  it  to  be  blessed,  she  said,  nor  had  she  laid  it 
upon  the  altar  to  make  it  lucky.  Had  she  prayed  that  it 
might  be  lucky,  asked  the  persistent  Beaupere.  "  Most 
certainly  I  wished  my  arms  to  be  lucky,"  she  answered. 
After  giving  a  full  description  of  her  banner,  she  was 
questioned  about  the  relief  of  Orleans,  and  especially 
if  she  had  promised  her  soldiers  that  she  herself  would 
receive  all  the  arrows,  bolts,  cannon  balls,  and  so  forth, 
which  might  be  aimed  at  them.  "  Certainly  not,"  she 
answered.  "  In  fact,  more  than  a  hundred  of  them  were 
hurt ;  but  I  did  tell  them  not  to  doubt,  and  that  they 
should  raise  the  siege.  In  attacking  the  fort  near  the 
bridge  I  myself  was  wounded ;  but  I  had  great  comfort 
from  St.  Catherine,  and  was  cured  within  a  fortnight, 
and  I  did  not  have  to  give  up  riding  and  attending  to 
business."  3 

1  P.  i.  71  et  seq.     It  is  probable  that  Joan   limited  the    name 
"voices"  (voix,  voces)  to  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Margaret. 

2  P.  i.  75.  3  P.  i.  79. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  279 

On  March  1  and  3  the  examination  was  continued  in 
much  the  same  fashion.1  Again  and  again  the  March 
examiner  asked  his  questions  about  the  voices :  1-3'  1431« 
did  they  wear  their  hair  long,  did  they  have  arms  and  legs, 
did  they  wear  earrings,  and  did  St.  Michael  wear  a  crown 
and  carry  a  pair  of  scales ?  "I  have  told  you  what  I 
know,"  Joan  said,  "  and  I  will  answer  you  no  further.  I 
have  seen  St.  Michael  and  the  other  saints  quite  well 
enough  to  know  that  they  are  really  saints  in  paradise."  2 
The  examiner  inquired  if  St.  Margaret  spoke  English. 
"  Why  should  she,"  asked  Joan,  in  return,  "  since  she  is 
not  of  the  English  party  ?  "  "  Was  St.  Michael  naked  ?  " 
"  Do  you  think  that  God  has  not  wherewith  to  clothe 
him  ?  "  Joan  answered.  "  Did  he  have  hair  ?  "  continued 
the  undaunted  doctor.  "  Why  should  it  have  been  cut 
off?"  Joan  replied,  not  thinking  the  question  deserved  a 
serious  answer ;  but,  when  Beaupere  insisted  on  finding 
out  the  condition  of  the  archangel's  head,  Joan  told  him 
that  she  knew  nothing  about  it.3 

What  promises  had  the  voices  made  to  her,  inquired 
Beaupere ;  knowing  that  Satan  is  in  the  habit  of  making 
large  promises  to  his  votaries.  "  They  promised  that  my 
king  should  receive  his  kingdom,  whether  his  enemies 
would  or  no,  and  that  they  would  guide  me  to  paradise,  as 
I  begged  them  to  do."  The  answer  was  disappointing, 
and  Beaup^re  asked  if  no  other  promise  had  been  given ; 
Joan  admitted  that  there  had  been  another,  which  she 
would  tell  within  three  months.  Did  they  promise  you 
that  within  three  months  you  should  be  released  ?  "  I  do 
not  know  when  I  shall  be  released,"  said  the  girl ;  "  but 
they  who  wish  to  put  me  out  of  the  world  may  well  leave 
it  before  me."  The  examiner  pressed  to  know  if  a  defi- 

1  P.  i.  80  et  seq. 

2  P.  i.  93. 

8  P.  i.  86,  89.  The  questions  are  somewhat  grouped,  in  order  that 
the  reader's  confusion  may  not  be  as  great  as  was  that  of  the  judges. 


280  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

nite  promise  of  release  had  been  given.  "  That  does  not 
concern  your  case,"  Joan  answered.  "  Do  you  wish  me  to 
give  evidence  against  myself  ?  "  At  length  she  admitted 
that  the  voices  had  promised  her  freedom,  though  she 
knew  neither  the  day  nor  the  hour  of  it ;  "  and  they  have 
bidden  me  to  be  bold  and  put  on  a  cheerful  face,"  she 
added.  "  I  should  have  died  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
revelation  which  comforts  me  daily."  1 

They  tried  to  show  that  Joan  used  magic  charms,  and 
especially  the  herb  mandragora.  She  answered  simply 
that  she  had  heard  it  existed  in  the  neighborhood  of  Doni- 
remy,  and  was  a  thing  dangerous  to  keep,  though  some- 
times used  to  get  money.  She  herself  had  no  belief  in  it 
and  never  had  used  it,  nor  had  her  voices  said  anything 
to  her  about  it.2  Beaupere  asked  if  prayers  and  masses 
had  not  been  said  in  her  honor.  Joan  replied  that  she 
knew  nothing  about  this,  and  that  no  service  had  been 
said  at  her  bidding,  but  if  people  had  prayed  for  her,  it 
seemed  to  her  that  they  had  not  done  ill.  "  Do  the  people 
of  your  party  believe  firmly  that  you  are  sent  by  God?" 
she  was  asked.  "  I  do  not  know  if  they  believe  it.  I  leave 
that  to  their  own  minds ;  but,  even  if  they  do  not  believe 
it,  yet  I  am  sent  by  God."  "  In  believing  that  you  are 
sent  by  God,  do  you  think  they  hold  a  true  belief?  "  asked 
the  pertinacious  doctor.  "  If  they  believe  that  I  am  sent 
by  God,  they  are  not  deceived,"  she  answered.3 

Pursuing  his  theory  of  magic,  Beaupere  reached  the 
case  of  the  child  brought  back  to  life  at  Lagny;  and 
Joan's  answer  is  given  as  an  example  of  the  clearness  and 
freedom  with  which  she  answered  all  ordinary  questions. 
"  The  child  was  three  days  old  and  was  brought  to  our 
Lady  at  Lagny.  I  was  told  that  the  maids  of  the  town 
were  before  our  Lady,  and  I  wished  to  go  there  and  pray 
God  and  our  Lady  to  bring  the  child  back  to  life,  so  I 
went  and  prayed  with  the  others.  At  last,  life  appeared 
1  P.  i.  87,  88,  94.  2  P.  i.  88.  »  P.  i.  101. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  281 

in  him  and  he  yawned  three  times ;  then  he  was  baptized, 
and  soon  afterwards  he  died  and  was  buried  in  conse- 
crated ground.  For  three  days,  they  said,  he  had  shown 
no  signs  of  life,  and  he  was  as  black  as  my  coat,  but  when 
he  yawned,  his  color  began  to  come  back.  I  was  with  the 
maids  on  my  knees  before  our  Lady  in  prayer."  "  Was  it 
not  said  in  the  town  that  you  had  brought  the  child  back 
to  life,  and  that  it  happened  on  account  of  your  prayers  ?  " 
inquired  Beaupere.  "  I  never  asked  about  that,"  Joan 
answered.1  In  the  same  simple  fashion  and  with  a  good 
deal  of  quiet  humor,  Joan  described  her  meetings  with 
Friar  Eichard  and  Catherine  of  La  Rochelle.2 

Several  times,  in  his  incoherent  examination,  Beaupere 
asked  about  her  dress,  and  almost  always  she  tried  to 
evade  his  questions.  It  was  a  small  matter,  she  said,  and 
she  held  no  man  responsible  for  it ;  if  her  voices  had  or- 
dered her  to  put  on  another  dress,  she  would  have  done 
so.  When  asked  if  she  thought  she  would  commit  mortal 
sin  if  she  should  put  on  women's  clothes,  she  answered 
that  it  was  better  to  obey  and  serve  her  sovereign  lord, 
that  is,  God.  In  truth,  she  was  too  modest  to  say  to  her 
judges  that  she  felt  safer  when  dressed  as  a  man,  and  it 
is  probable  that,  even  in  her  own  mind,  she  did  not  alto- 
gether separate  the  direct  commands  of  her  voices  and  the 
measures  of  ordinary  prudence  which  she  believed  them  to 
approve.3 

At  the  close  of  the  sixth  day  of  Joan's  examination, 
Cauchon  told  the  assessors  that  he  proposed  to  March 
appoint  a  committee  to  make  a  digest  or  synopsis  ^  1431- 
of  the  answers  which  she  had  already  given.  If  it  should 
appear  necessary  to  examine  her  further,  he  did  not  intend 
to  vex  the  whole  body  of  them  by  requiring  their  attend- 

1  P.  i.  105. 

2  P.  i.  99,  102, 106. 

8  P.  i.  54,  74,  96.  Probably,  also,  Beaupere's  insistence  led  her  to 
assert  a  divine  command  for  the  dress  she  wore  more  direct  and 
unqualified  than  she  really  wished  to  claim. 


282  JOAN  OF  ABC. 

ance  in  court,  but  would  appoint  another  committee  to 
conduct  the  second  examination,  the  result  of  which  should 
be  submitted  to  all  the  assessors  in  writing.  For  six  days 
in  succession  1  the  first  mentioned  committee  worked  over 
the  minutes  of  the  evidence,  and  prepared  a  list  of  sub- 
jects on  which  Joan  should  be  questioned  further.2 

The  subjects  thus  selected  are  known  only  from  the 
course  of  the  second  examination,  which  was  quite  as  in- 
coherent as  the  first.  If  we  consider,  however,  the  suspi- 
cions with  which  the  judges  entered  upon  the  trial,  and 
the  causes  of  complaint  against  Joan  which  they  tjien  be- 
lieved themselves  to  have,  we  shall  see  that  the  prosecution 
had  not  yet  made  out  a  case  as  strong  as  that  expected 
from  it.  Cauchon  had  decided  to  call  no  witness  but 
Joan  herself ;  the  depositions  taken  elsewhere  were  to  be 
used  only  as  suggestions  to  the  prosecuting  attorney,  and 
Joan's  guilt  was  to  be  proved  by  her  testimony  alone. 
But  the  testimony  which  Joan  had  given,  even  if  it  did 
not  show  that  she  was  innocent,  at  least  had  failed  to 
establish  her  guilt.  It  was  possible  to  believe  that  the 
voices  which  spoke  to  her  were  those  of  devils,  but  the 
likelihood  of  their  being  angelic  or  saintly  had  been  in- 
creased by  her  story.  On  some  minor  matters  of  accusa- 
tion, such  as  the  use  of  magic  and  the  receiving  of  idola- 
trous worship,  the  prosecution  had  failed  utterly,  and  its 
failure  in  these  lesser  things  had  made  less  probable  the 
principal  charge. 

The  testimony  had  had  its  effect  upon  those  who  heard 
it,  or  at  least  upon  some  of  them.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  trial  it  is  probable  that  all  the  assessors  were  more 
or  less  prejudiced  against  Joan,  but  among  them  were 
several  fair-minded  men,  who  really  wished  to  render  an 
impartial  judgment.  These  men  had  been  influenced  by 
Joan's  testimony  and  bearing,  and  two  or  three  of  them 
spoke  their  minds  to  their  friends  or  in  public.  One 
1  March  4  to  9  inclusive.  2  P.  i.  Ill,  112. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  283 

could  see  no  great  harm  in  Joan  ;  another  said  that, 
if  her  answers  had  been  but  very  slightly  different,  she 
would  have  cleared  herself  altogether.  Even  the  ser- 
geant, who  led  Joan  from  the  prison  to  the  court-room, 
told  an  acquaintance  that  nothing  discreditable  had  yet 
appeared  in  her,  though  God  only  knew  how  she  would 
hold  out  to  the  end.  Cauchon  reproved  the  man  severely 
and  spoke  harshly  to  the  assessors,  but  their  remarks 
were  the  common  gossip  of  Rouen ;  the  English  became 
alarmed  and  angry,  and  the  bishop  perceived  that  his 
method  of  procedure  must  be  changed.  It  was  not  easy 
to  stop  the  mouths  of  half  a  hundred  ecclesiastics,  many 
of  them  men  of  distinction  and  of  some  independence.1 

For  these  considerations,  rather  than  from  a  kindly  re- 
gard for  the  convenience  of  his  colleagues,  Cauchon  pro- 
posed thereafter  to  examine  Joan  in  presence  of  a  small 
committee,  the  members  of  which  he  could  select.  Fur- 
thermore, instead  of  holding  his  court  in  a  room  to  which 
some  outsiders  may  have  had  access,  he  determined  to  go 
to  Joan's  cell.  By  this  means  he  not  only  secured  a  re- 
tired place  for  his  proceedings,  so  small  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  gather  there  more  than  eight  or  ten  persons, 
but  he  also  deprived  Joan  of  the  relief  she  had  gained 
from  the  change  of  scene  and  the  exercise  of  moving 
from  her  cell  to  the  court-room.  On  March  10 
he  went  to  the  tower,  accompanied  by  Midi  and  10-12, 

14.°»1 

Feuillet,  delegates  of  the  University  of  Paris, 
upon  whom  he  could  rely ;  there  were  present,  besides, 
only  his  commissary,  another  lawyer,  the  sergeant,  and  the 
notaries.     In  place  of  Beaupere,  La  Fontaine  the  com- 
missary acted  as  examiner.2 

He  first  asked  Joan  about   her  capture   before  Com- 
piegne,  and  attempted  to  show  that  her  voices  must  have 

1  P.  ii.  16,  329,  Massieu  ;  348,  349,  La  Pierre  ;  354,  Marguerie  ; 
356,  Grouchet ;  373,  Riquier. 

2  P.  i.  113. 


284  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

come  from  the  Devil,  because  they  had  betrayed  her  to 
her  enemies.  Joan  answered,  however,  that  her  voices 
had  foretold  her  capture  for  weeks,  though  she  had  not 
known  precisely  when  it  would  happen.1  After  touching 
upon  one  or  two  other  matters,  La  Fontaine  began  to  ask 
about  the  sign  which  Joan  had  given  to  Charles  VII. 

At  an  earlier  examination,  as  has  been  said  already, 
Joan  had  begun  to  play  upon  words,  and  to  make  an  alle- 
gory of  her  coming  to  Charles,  in  which  she  took  the  part 
of  an  angel  bringing  him  a  sign.  The  counsel  of  her 
voices  to  answer  boldly,  her  sense  of  humor,  tickled  by 
the  gravity  with  which  her  examiners  asked  their  stupid 
questions  and  misunderstood  her  figurative  answers,  and 
her  firm  belief  that  she  had  been  really  God's  messenger 
to  give  a  kingdom  to  her  king,  all  made  her  persist  in  the 
mystification.  If  her  conduct  in  so  dangerous  a  situation 
seems  to  us  frivolous,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that,  ordi- 
narily, she  was  without  the  sense  of  fear.  At  Beau- 
revoir,  indeed,  she  had  been  afraid  of  falling  into  the 
hands  of  the  English ;  but  she  recognized  with  shame  that 
this  fear  had  led  her  into  sin,  indeed  had  almost  been 
a  sin  in  itself,  inasmuch  as  it  had  implied  a  distrust 
of  her  heavenly  voices.  This  sin  she  would  not  commit 
again  ;  her  voices  were  continually  telling  her  to  be  bold, 
and  she  was  bold.  No  doubt  she  expected  them  in  some 
way  or  other  to  deliver  her  from  prison,  though  she  did 
not  know  how.  Sometimes  she  partly  realized  her  situa- 
tion, but  during  the  first  part  of  the  trial,  at  any  rate,  she 
was  almost  sure  of  escape. 

When,  therefore,  La  Fontaine  asked  her  what  was  the 
sign  she  had  given  to  the  king,  she  replied  that  it  was 
fair  and  honorable,  trustworthy  and  good,  the  richest 
thing  that  could  be.  "  Does  it  still  remain  in  existence?" 
inquired  La  Fontaine.  "  Surely  it  does,"  Joan  answered, 
"  and  it  will  last  for  a  thousand  years  and  more."  "  Is 
1  P.  i.  114  et  seq. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  285 

it  gold  or  silver,  a  precious  stone  or  a  crown  ?  "  asked  the 
examiner.  "  I  will  tell  you  no  more,"  said  Joan.  "  Man 
could  not  imagine  anything  so  rich  as  the  sign.  For  you 
the  sign  most  needed  is  that  God  should  deliver  me  out 
of  your  hands,  and  that  is  the  surest  sign  He  can  send 
you."  La  Fontaine  asked  if  she  had  made  obeisance  to 
the  sign.  Joan  answered  that  she  had  gone  down  upon 
her  knees  many  times,  and  had  thanked  God  for  freeing 
her  from  the  vexations  of  the  clergy.  When  the  king 
and  those  who  were  with  him  had  seen  the  sign  and  the 
angel  who  brought  it,  she  had  asked  the  king  if  he  was 
satisfied,  and  he  had  answered  yes.  For  love  of  her,  and 
that  people  might  stop  asking  her  questions,  God  had 
been  willing  that  the  men  of  her  party  should  see  the 
sign.  In  some  of  her  answers,  as  they  are  reported,  it  is 
not  easy  to  discover  the  allegorical  sense,  but  the  notaries 
had  no  idea  what  she  meant,  and,  though  quite  honest, 
they  may  not  have  taken  down  the  exact  words  upon 
which  her  double  meaning  depended.1 

On  February  22,  as  has  been  said,2  Cauchon  had 
written  to  the  inquisitor-general  asking  that  the  Holy 
Office  take  part  in  Joan's  trial.  Unable  to  be  present 
himself,  on  March  12  Graverent  sent  a  commission  which 
removed  completely  the  legal  scruples  of  his  vicar  Le- 
maitre,  and  gave  him  full  authority  to  act  in  the  matter.3 
Lemaitre,  however,  seems  to  have  done  no  more  than  was 
necessary.  He  had  the  right  to  appoint  his  own  prose- 
cuting attorney  and  sergeant,  but,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
responsibility  of  choice,  he  commissioned  as  officials  of 
the  Inquisition  Estivet  and  Massieu,  who  had  already 
been  appointed  by  Cauchon.  He  himself  sat  silent  be- 
side Cauchon,  and  brought  with  him  a  Dominican  friar, 
Isambard  of  La  Pierre,  who  soon  began  to  sympathize 
with  Joan.4 

1  P.  i.  119  et  seq.  2  See  p.  264,  supra. 

3  P.  i.  122  et  seq.  *  P.  i.  134  et  seq.,  148. 


286  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

i 

Between  Monday,  March  12,  and  Saturday,  March  18, 
the    court    sat   eight    times,   always    in   Joan's 

March  .  '  J 

12-18,  cell,  twice  each  on  Monday,  VV  ednesday,  and 
Saturday,  once  each  on  Tuesday  and  Thursday. 
Six  or  eight  persons  only  were  present ;  all  picked  men 
upon  whom  Cauchon  thought  he  could  rely.1  The  exam- 
ination, conducted  mostly  by  La  Fontaine,  was  as  inco- 
herent as  ever.  The  questions  shifted  from  one  part  of 
the  case  to  another  and  back  again,  perhaps  to  bewilder 
Joan,  perhaps  because  at  his  own  want  of  success  the 
examiner  himself  was  perplexed.  To  avoid  utter  confu- 
sion, some  of  Joan's  answers,  gathered  from  these  eight 
sittings,  are  grouped  together. 

Over  and  over  again,  probably  with  a  real  curiosity, 
her  examiners  tried  to  find  out  what  was  the  sign  she  had 
shown  to  the  king,  and,  under  their  minute  questioning, 
Joan  was  forced  to  make  her  allegory  more  and  more 
elaborate.  "  Did  the  angel  come  down  from  on  high,  or 
did  he  walk  along  the  ground  ?  "  she  was  asked.  "  He 
came  from  on  high,"  Joan  answered,  "that  is,  he  came 
by  the  command  of  our  Lord ;  he  came  into  the  room 
through  the  door."  The  examiners  inquired  what  the 
angel  did  after  he  had  entered  the  room.  "He  made 
obeisance  to  the  king,"  said  Joan,  "  and  called  to  remem- 
brance the  noble  patience  the  king  had  shown  under  the 
great  tribulations  which  had  befallen  him."  "  Where 
did  the  angel  first  appear  to  you?"  asked  the  examiner. 
"  I  was  almost  always  praying  that  God  would  send  the 
sign  to  the  king,  and  I  was  in  my  lodgings  with  a  good 
woman,  near  the  castle,  when  the  angel  came ;  then  we 
went  together  to  the  king."  The  doctor  inquired  if  God 
had  sent  his  angel  to  her  on  account  of  her  own  merit. 
Joan  replied  that  he  had  come  for  a  weighty  cause,  hop- 
ing that  the  king  would  believe  the  sign,  and  that  men 
would  cease  to  dispute  with  her ;  also  to  bring  help  to  the 
1  Except  La  Pierre,  who  was  introduced  by  the  inquisitor. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  287 

people  of  Orleans,  and  for  the  merit  of  the  king  and  of 
the  duke  of  Orleans.  "  Why,  then,  did  the  angel  come  to 
you?"  said  her  questioner.  "Because  it  pleased  God," 
Joan  answered,  "to  overthrow  the  king's  enemies  by  a 
simple  maid."  1 

The  like  minute  inquiry  was  made  concerning  the 
appearance  of  St.  Michael,  St.  Margaret,  and  St.  Cather- 
ine. In  what  she  said  about  the  saints,  Joan  intended 
no  allegory,  but  she  described  them  with  great  reserve, 
partly  because  she  was  not  ready  to  tell  everything  she 
had  seen,  and  partly  because,  from  the  nature  of  the  reve- 
lation, she  knew  little  of  their  bodily  appearance.  She 
knew  the  archangel,  she  said,  by  his  speech.  Suppose 
the  Enemy  took  the  appearance  of  an  angel,  how  would 
she  know  him  from  a  real  one,  asked  her  questioner. 
Joan  was  sure  that  she  could  tell  the  difference  between  a 
true  angel  and  a  false  one,  though,  when  St.  Michael  had 
first  visited  her,  she  had  been  doubtful  and  very  fearful. 
The  examiner  wished  to  know  how  she  was  able  to  recog- 
nize the  angel  after  several  appearances  better  than  at 
first.  Joan  answered  that  she  knew  him  by  his  teaching. 
"What  did  he  teach  ?  "  asked  La  Fontaine.  "  Above  all, 
he  taught  me  to  be  a  good  child,"  said  Joan,  "  and  that 
God  would  help  me  ;  among  other  things  he  bade  me  go 
to  help  the  king  of  France,  and  he  told  me  of  the  great 
distress  of  the  kingdom."  2 

Despite  their  former  failure,  the  examiners  again  tried 
to  prove  that  Joan  had  practiced  magic  and  had  used  tal- 
ismans. She  had  told  them  that  she  loved  her  banner 
far  better  than  her  sword,  and  upon  her  banner  they 
pitched,  asking  why  she  had  emblazoned  it  in  the  fashion 
she  described,  who  were  the  angels  thereon  represented, 
and  why  there  were  two  angels,  neither  less  nor  more. 

1  P.  i.  139  et  seq. 

2  "  La  pitie"  qui  estoit  en  royaume  de  France."     See  P.  i.  170  et 
seq. 


288  JOAN  OF  ABC. 

Joan  was  impatient  of  questions  like  these,  and  she  an- 
swered shortly  that  her  voices  had  told  her  to  take  the 
banner  in  the  name  of  the  King  of  Heaven.  Did  she 
pray  that  she  might  gain  all  her  battles  by  virtue  of  her 
banner,  asked  the  examiner.  Joan  replied  that  her  voices 
bade  her  take  the  banner  boldly,  and  promised  that  God 
would  help  her.  The  persistent  La  Fontaine  then  in- 
quired which  had  been  most  efficacious  in  winning  the 
victory,  the  banner  or  herself.  "  All  depended  upon  our 
Lord,"  said  Joan.  "  Did  your  hope  of  victory  rest  upon 
your  banner  or  upon  yourself  ?  "  "  It  rested  upon  our 
Lord  and  nowhere  else."  "  If  another  hand  had  carried 
the  banner,  would  it  have  been  as  lucky  as  it  was  when 
you  carried  it ? "  "I  know  nothing  about  that ;  I  leave  it 
to  God."  "  If  one  of  your  men  had  lent  you  his  banner, 
and  you  had  carried  it,  would  you  have  had  as  good  hope 
in  it  as  in  the  banner  which  was  commanded  by  God?  — 
suppose,  for  example,  it  had  been  the  royal  standard." 
"  I  was  more  willing  to  carry  the  banner  commanded  me  by 
our  Lord,  but  I  left  everything  altogether  to  our  Lord." 1 
"  Why  was  your  banner  displayed  in  the  cathedral  of 
Bheims,  at  the  king's  consecration,  rather  than  the  ban- 
ners of  the  other  captains  ?  "  asked  the  judge.  "  It  had 
shared  the  trial,"  Joan  answered;  "  that  was  good  reason 
for  its  sharing  the  honor."  2 

The  common  belief  of  the  Middle  Ages  attributed  a 
mystic  virtue  to  maidenhood,  and  Joan  had  called  herself 
the  Maid.3  If  her  strength  was  not  to  be  found  in  her 
banner,  perhaps  it  depended  upon  her  virginity.  The 
examiner  asked  accordingly  if  she  knew  by  revelation 
that  in  losing  her  virginity  she  would  lose  her  good  luck 

1  "  Toutes  voies  du  tout  je  m'en  actendoye  &  nostre  Seigneur." 

2  P.  i.  181  et  seq. 

8  So  did  the  common  belief  of  many  ancient  peoples,  but  the  ascet- 
icism of  mediaeval  Christianity  greatly  strengthened  the  natural  and 
almost  universal  feeling. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  289 

and  would  no  longer  be  visited  by  her  voices.1  With  all 
her  frankness,  Joan  seems  in  such  matters  to  have  been 
much  more  shamefaced  and  modest  of  speech  than  was 
common  among  women  of  her  time.  "  That  has  not  been 
revealed  to  me,"  she  said.  "  If  you  were  married,  do  you 
believe  that  your  voices  would  not  come  to  you  ?  "  con- 
tinued her  questioner.  "  I  do  not  know,"  she  answered, 
"  and  leave  that  to  our  Lord."  2 

Aside  from  these  serious  matters,  the  judges  often 
resorted  to  mere  catch  questions.  "  Do  you  know  if  St. 
Catherine  and  St.  Margaret  hate  the  English  ?  "  asked 
La  Fontaine.  "  They  love  what  our  Lord  loves,  and 
they  hate  what  God  hates,"  Joan  answered.  "  Does  God 
hate  the  English  ?  "  the  examiner  then  asked.  "  As  for 
God's  love  or  hatred  of  the  English,  and  as  for  what  he 
will  do  to  their  souls,  I  know  nothing,"  said  Joan  ;  "  but 
I  know  well  that  they  shall  be  driven  out  of  France,  all 
except  those  who  die  there,  and  that  God  will  send  vic- 
tory to  the  French  over  the  English."  "  Was  God  for 
the  English  while  they  prospered  in  France  ?  "  continued 
the  wily  priest.  Joan  replied  that  she  did  not  know  if 
God  hated  the  French,  but  she  believed  that  He  was  will- 
ing to  let  them  be  beaten  for  their  sins,  if  they  had  com- 
mitted any.3  Afterwards,  on  the  same  day,  the  examiner, 
having  put  the  questions  about  her  marriage  already  men- 
tioned, suddenly  asked  if  she  firmly  believed  that  her 
king  had  done  well  to  kill  the  duke  of  Burgundy.  As 
Charles  did  not  openly  confess  his  share  in  the  murder, 
though  he  was  generally  believed  to  be  guilty,  La  Fon- 
taine was  begging  the  question,  but  Joan  did  not  stop  to 
dispute  the  fact.  She  answered  that  the  duke's  killing 
had  been  a  great  injury  to  the  kingdom  of  France,  but 

1  Apparently  Joan  was  examined  and  found  a  virgin.    P.  iii.  50,  De 
la  Chambre  ;  89,  Marcel ;  155,  Massieu  ;  163,  Boisguillaume  ;  175, 
Fabre.     The  evidence  is  not  absolutely  conclusive. 

2  P.  i.  183.  3  P.  i.  178. 


290  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

that,  however  matters  might  stand  between  the  two  men, 
God  had  sent  her  to  the  succor  of  the  king  of  France.1 

Though  the  examiners  had  had  scant  success  in  some  of 
the  matters  just  mentioned,  yet  there  were  others  wherein 
Joan's  sins  seemed  more  evident.  Inasmuch  as  one  ought 
to  honor  father  and  mother,  had  she  done  right,  asked  La 
Fontaine,  to  leave  her  home  without  their  knowledge. 
Joan  answered  that  she  had  obeyed  her  parents  in  all 
things  except  in  the  matter  of  leaving  them,  and  that 
afterwards  she  had  written  to  them  and  they  had  forgiven 
her.  Forgiveness  after  the  fact  was  not  enough  for  the 
doctor,  and  he  inquired  if,  at  the  time  she  was  leaving 
her  parents,  she  thought  she  was  not  doing  wrong. 
"Since  God  ordered  it,"  said  Joan,  "it  ought  to  have 
been  done.  Since  God  ordered  it,  though  I  had  had  a 
hundred  fathers  and  mothers,  even  though  I  had  been  a 
king's  daughter,  still  I  would  have  left  them."  2 

In  jumping  from  the  tower  at  Beaurevoir,  Joan  admitted 
that  she  had  taken  her  life  in  her  hand,  and  had  diso- 
beyed her  voices.  The  judges  made  the  most  of  this  sin, 
but  they  could  get  out  of  Joan  nothing  more  than  a  frank 
confession  of  it.  La  Fontaine  asked  if  she  had  done 
severe  penance  therefor.  Joan  answered  that  she  had 
done  a  large  part  of  the  penance  in  suffering  the  pain 
which  the  fall  had  caused  her.  "  In  taking  the  leap,  do 
you  believe  that  you  committed  mortal  sin  ?  "  inquired 
the  doctor.  "  I  know  nothing  of  that,"  said  Joan,  "  but 
leave  it  to  our  Lord."  3 

Again  and  again  the  examiners  returned  to  Joan's 
dress,  inasmuch  as  it  seemed  to  them  continuous  and  defi- 
ant transgression.  Her  shamefacedness,  already  spoken 
of,  kept  her  from  telling  them  the  whole  truth,  though 
her  meaning  must  at  times  have  been  pretty  clear.  "  Did 
your  voices  command  you  to  wear  men's  clothes  ?  "  she  was 

1  P.  i.  183.  2  P.  i.  129. 

»  P.  i.  161,  169,  172. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  291 

asked.  "  All  the  good  that  I  have  done,  I  have  done  at 
the  bidding  of  my  voices,"  she  replied,  thus  evading  the 
answer  that  her  voices  had  directly  commanded  her  dress, 
which  probably  was  not  true.  "  In  wearing  men's  dress, 
did  you  think  you  were  doing  wrong?"  was  the  next  ques- 
tion. "  No,"  said  Joan,  "  and  even  now  if  I  were  with  the 
other  side,  in  this  very  man's  dress,  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  would  be  a  very  good  thing  for  France  to  do  as  I  did 
before  I  was  taken  prisoner."  On  no  account,  she  said, 
would  she  swear  not  to  bear  arms  and  dress  like  a  man  in 
order  to  do  our  Lord's  pleasure.1 

Taking  advantage  of  her  wish  to  hear  mass,  they  asked 
if  it  did  not  seem  to  her  more  fitting  that  she  should 
hear  it  in  women's  clothes.  Which  did  she  prefer,  they 
continued,  to  put  on  women's  clothes  and  hfear  mass,  or 
to  keep  her  men's  clothes  and  not  hear  mass.  "  Prom- 
ise me  that  I  shall  hear  mass,  if  I  am  dressed  like  a 
woman,  and  I  will  answer  you,"  said  Joan.  "  I  promise 
you,"  said  the  examiner.  Joan  feared  a  trick,  and  wa- 
vered for  an  instant.  "And  what  would  you  say  if  I 
had  sworn  to  our  king  that  I  would  not  change  my  dress  ? 
However,  I  will  tell  you  this.  Make  me  a  long  dress 
reaching  to  the  ground,  without  a  train,  and  let  me  wear 
it  to  mass,  and  then  after  I  come  back  I  will  put  these 
clothes  on  again."  Joan's  offer  did  not  satisfy  the  exam- 
iner, who  probably  hoped  to  twist  her  change  of  dress  into 
a  confession  of  sin,  and  he  insisted  that  she  should  put  on 
women's  clothes  without  conditions.  This,  of  course,  she 
would  not  do.  "  Give  me  a  dress  like  that  of  a  burgher's 
daughter,"  she  said  ;  "  a  long  cloak  and  a  woman's  hood, 
and  I  will  put  it  on  to  go  and  hear  mass."  Immediately 
afterwards,  however,  she  begged  to  hear  mass  dressed  as 
she  was,  and  for  the  time  the  examiner  dropped  the  sub- 
ject.2 At  a  later  hearing,  when  Joan  began  to  realize  the 
possibility  of  condemnation,  she  herself  begged  the  church- 
1  P.  i.  132, 177.  2  P.  i.  164  et  seq. 


292  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

men  present  that  if  she  must  be  stripped  for  execution 
they  would  grant  her  the  favor  of  a  woman's  smock  and 
kerchief.  "  If  you  wear  men's  clothes  at  God's  bidding, 
why  at  the  point  of  death  do  you  ask  for  a  woman's 
smock?  "  inquired  the  examiner.  "  If  it  is  long,  it  will  be 
sufficient,"  said  Joan,  whose  modesty  would  let  her  say  no 
more.1 

Throughout  her  trial,  Joan's  answers  regarding  her 
dress  show  that  she  was  not  quite  sure  what  she  ought  to 
do.  For  the  accomplishment  of  her  divine  mission,  man's 
dress  was  fitting  and  almost  necessary ;  in  this  sense  it 
was  worn  by  God's  command,  though  probably  her  voices 
had  given  her  no  direct  commandment  to  wear  it.  Against 
the  brutality  of  her  keepers  it  gave  her  some  protection. 
So  long  as  she  was  a  prisoner,  however,  her  mission  was 
suspended,  and,  if  she  was  willing  to  take  the  risk  of  ill 
treatment,  there  might  seem  no  positive  sin  in  changing  her 
dress  in  order  to  hear  mass  or  to  humor  her  judges.  She 
was  deterred  chiefly  by  another  consideration.  Though 
her  dress  was  not  directly  of  divine  appointment,  though 
it  was  in  itself  a  small  thing,  as  she  recognized,  yet  in  the 
minds  of  her  judges,  and  of  nearly  all  men,  it  was  so 
closely  connected  with  her  mission  that  to  give  up  one 
appeared  to  be  the  denial  of  the  other.  The  sensitive  fear 
lest  she  should  seem  disloyal  to  God  made  her  hesitate  to 
do  that  which  was  otherwise  indifferent,  and  it  explains 
much  of  her  conduct  in  the  last  part  of  the  trial. 

Like  the  belief  of  all  who  think  themselves  inspired, 
Joan's  absolute  dependence  upon  God  seemed  to  savor 
both  of  fatalism  and  presumption.  "  Since  your  voices 
tell  you  that  you  will  come  at  last  into  the  realm  of  para- 
dise, are  you  assured  that  you  will  be  saved,  and  not 
damned  in  hell  ?  "  asked  the  examiner.  Joan  answered 
that  she  believed  the  promise  of  salvation  made  her  by  her 
voices  as  firmly  as  if  she  were  already  in  heaven.  "  That 
1  P.  i.  176. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  293 

is  a  weighty  answer,"  said  La  Fontaine.  Joan  replied 
that  she  held  it  to  be  a  great  treasure.  "  After  this  reve- 
lation, do  you  think  that  you  cannot  commit  mortal  sin  ?  " 
insinuated  the  examiner.  "  I  know  nothing  about  that," 
said  Joan,  "  but  I  leave  it  altogether  to  our  Lord."  1 

Even  if  every  other  device  failed,  there  was  one  trap 
into  which  Joan  was  sure  to  fall.  It  was  the  last  resort 
of  the  examiners,2  and  they  made  use  of  it  with  consider- 
able skill.  Joan  had  asserted  that  she  was  God's  messen- 
ger, commissioned  by  Hi^i  through  the  jfoice  of  saints  and 
angels.  It  was  possible,  ^o  say  the  least,  that  her  inspira- 
tion was  from  the  Devil.  Was  she/willing  to  leave  the 
decision  of  the  question  t$  the  cMrch  ?  If  she  refused 
submission,  her  guilt  was  'established,  for  to  deny  the 
authority  of  the  church  was  at  once  the  commonest  and 
the  deadliest  of  heresies.  If  she  submitted,  then  the  eccle- 
siastical tribunal  before  which  she  stood  was  ready  to 
assume  the  functions  of  the  church,  and  to  decide  the 
question  against  her. 

In  her  religious  belief,  Joan  was  a  devout  Catholic  of 
the  fifteenth  century,  holding  heartily  and  without  ques- 
tion all  the  doctrines  of  the  church.  From  the  least  taint 
of  Protestantism  in  any  form,  of  the  doctrines  of  Huss  or 
Wiclif ,  she  was  absolutely  free  ;  indeed,  she  seems  to  have 
regarded  the  Hussites  with  most  orthodox  abhorrence. 
The  supreme  authority  of  the  church  she  doubted  no  more 
than  she  doubted  the  heavenly  nature  of  her  visitors.  Of 
both  she  was  absolutely  sure,  and,  for  a  time  at  least,  she 
could  see  no  difficulty  in  her  assurance  of  them  both. 
The  difficulty  existed,  however,  and  her  judges  made  the 

1  P.  i.  155. 

2  As  has  been  said,  the  examination  was  not  conducted  in  any  defi- 
nite order,  and  many  other  accusations  were  persisted  in  after  disobe- 
dience to  the  church  was  suggested  ;  but,  on  the  whole,  this  accusation 
was  the  last  made,  and  its  comparative  importance  increased  as  the 
trial  proceeded. 


294  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

most  of  it.  She  ought  to  allow  the  church,  they  told  her, 
to  decide  if  she  had  offended  against  the  true  faith.  Joan 
replied  by  asking  that  her  answers  should  be  examined 
by  the  clergy,  and  that  these  should  tell  her  if  there  was 
anything  in  them  contrary  to  the  Christian  faith.  She 
for  her  part  would  be  well  advised  in  the  matter  by  her 
council,  and  would  tell  them  what  was  revealed  to  her. 
If  she  had  done  anything  against  the  Christian  faith,  she 
was  very  sorry  and  would  not  persist  in  it. 

They  then  explained  to  her  the  difference  between  the 
church  militant  and  the  church  triumphant,  and  asked 
her  if  she  would  allow  the  church  on  earth  to  determine 
whether  she  had  done  well  or  ill.  Suspecting  with  very 
good  reason  that  the  judges  before  her  claimed  the  whole 
authority  of  the  church  militant,  Joan  evaded  the  question 
by  replying  that  she  would  not  answer  them  further  for 
the  present.1 

About  an  hour  afterwards  they  returned  to  the  attack 
and  asked  her  abruptly  if  she  would  submit  her  words 
and  acts  to  the  church.  "  My  deeds,"  Joan  answered, 
"  are  all  in  the  hands  of  God,  and  I  leave  them  to  Him. 
I  assure  you  that  I  would  do  or  say  nothing  against 
the  Christian  faith.  If  I  had  done  or  said  anything,  or 
if  I  had  any  charm  about  me,  which  the  priests  could 
say  was  against  the  Christian  faith  which  our  Lord  has 
established,  I  would  not  hold  it,  but  I  would  cast  it 
away."  The  examiner  persisted  in  his  question :  Would 
she  submit  herself  to  the  decree  of  the  church  ?  Again 
Joan  hesitated.  "  I  will  not  now  answer  you  any  fur- 
ther," she  said,  "but  on  Saturday  send  me  a  priest,  if 
you  will  not  come  yourself,  and  I  will  answer  him  with 
God's  help,  and  it  shall  be  put  down  in  writing."  2 

This  happened  on  Thursday.  On  Saturday  the  ex- 
aminer again  repeated  his  question.  As  to  the  church, 
Joan  answered,  she  loved  it  and  would  uphold  it  with  all 
1  P.  i.  162.  2  P.  i.  166. 


JOAN'S  EXAMINATION.  295 

her  might,  and  she  added  that  she  ought  not  to  be  kept 
from  going  to  church  or  from  hearing  mass.  As  for  the 
good  deeds  she  had  done,  and  as  for  her  coming  to  court, 
she  must  leave  all  to  the  King  of  Heaven,  who  had  sent 
her  to  Charles,  the  son  of  Charles,  king  of  France,  who 
should  be  king  of  France  himself.  "  And  you  will  see," 
she  went  on,  "that  the  French  shall  soon  gain  a  great 
victory,  which  God  shall  give  them,  a  victory  so  great 
that  it  will  shake  almost  the  whole  kingdom  of  France. 
When  it  happens,  remember  that  I  told  you." 

"  At  what  time  will  it  happen  ?  "  asked  the  judge.  "  I 
leave  that  to  our  Lord,"  Joan  answered. 

Again  the  examiner  asked  her  if  she  would  submit  to 
the  decision  of  the  church.  "  I  will  submit  to  our  Lord, 
who  sent  me,"  Joan  replied,  "  and  to  our  Lady,  and  to  all 
the  blessed  saints  in  paradise."  Our  Lord  and  the  church 
seemed  all  the  same  to  her,  she  added,  and  they  ought 
not  to  make  a  difference  between  the  two,  and  she  asked 
why  they  tried  to  make  out  a  difference  in  that  which  was 
all  one. 

They  explained  to  her  the  church  triumphant,  —  God, 
the  saints  and  angels,  and  the  souls  in  bliss ;  and  the 
church  militant,  —  our  holy  father  the  pope,  God's  vicar 
on  earth,  the  cardinals,  bishops,  and  clergy,  and  all  good 
catholic  Christians,  —  which  church  lawfully  assembled 
cannot  err,  but  is  directed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Would  she 
submit  herself  to  the  church  militant  as  they  explained  it 
to  her  ?  "I  have  come  to  the  king  of  France  by  God's 
command,"  she  answered,  "  by  the  command  of  the  Virgin 
Mary  and  all  the  blessed  saints  in  paradise,  and  by  the 
command  of  the  church  victorious  on  high,  and  to  that 
church  I  will  submit  all  my  good  deeds,  and  all  I  have 
done  or  have  to  do.  As  to  submitting  to  the  church  mili- 
tant, I  will  say  nothing  more."  l 

1  P.  i.  174  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
THE  ARTICLES. 

ON  March  18  was  finished  the  taking  of  testimony  for 
the  inquest  or  informatio  prceparatoria.  All 
18-27,  the  testimony  was  then  read  over  to  Joan,  and 
with  one  or  two  trifling  exceptions  she  acknow- 
ledged it.  The  court  had  next  to  decide  if  it  was  sufficient 
to  bring  her  to  trial,  or,  iu  the  phraseology  of  the  Eng- 
lish law,  to  justify  the  finding  of  an  indictment.  A  digest 
of  it  was  prepared  by  Estivet,  the  prosecuting  attorney, 
which  corresponded  somewhat  to  the  indictment  itself. 
In  the  first  place,  this  digest  was  to  be  approved  by  the 
court  as  showing  sufficient  cause  for  trying  Joan,  and  after 
such  approval  it  was  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  her  further 
examination.  While  Estivet  was  engaged  in  this  work, 
some  of  the  assessors  looked  up  precedents  and  authorities 
and  tried  to  make  themselves  familiar  with  what  we 
should  call  the  law  of  the  case,  as  distinguished  from  its 
facts.  On  March  26  Estivet  read  to  the  court  his  digest 
or  articles,  which  were  pronounced  sufficient  by  Cauchon 
and  Lemaitre,  apparently  without  taking  the  opinion  of 
the  assessors.  The  bishop  directed  that  Joan  should  be 
brought  before  him,  on  the  following  day,  to  answer  the 
charges.1  It  is  time  to  consider  what  effect  her  testi- 
mony had  already  produced  on  those  who  had  heard  it. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  trial  all  these  men  were  pre- 
judiced against  Joan,  and  had  little  doubt  of  her  guilt. 
With  many,  probably  with  most  of  them,  the  prejudice 
rested  upon  what  they  had  heard,  the  stories  about  her 
1  P.  i.  188  et  seq.,  194. 


THE   ARTICLES.  297 

which  circulated  among  the  Anglo-Burgundians.  With 
some  of  the  hearers,  like  Cauchon,  this  natural  and  un- 
avoidable prejudice  was  joined  to  the  bitterest  partisan 
hatred.  Some  of  the  assessors  had  believed  Joan  guilty, 
but  had  cared  little  whether  she  were  guilty  or  not ;  others 
had  not  only  believed  her  guilty,  but  had  wished  her  con- 
viction even  more  than  they  thought  it  just. 

The  fairer-minded  assessors  were  in  great  perplexity. 
Joan's  bearing  had  pleased  them,  and  many  of  the  charges 
against  her  had  been  disproved  ;  yet  in  her  conduct  there 
was  much  to  rouse  suspicion :  her  presumptuous  confi- 
dence in  her  voices,  her  obstinacy  in  wearing  men's 
clothes,  above  all,  her  hesitation  in  submitting  herself  to 
the  church.  Some  of  these  men  honestly  doubted  whether 
Joan  were  a  witch  or  the  messenger  of  God,  and  wished 
to  find  out  the  truth. 

Unfortunately,  there  were  obstacles  to  the  discovery  of 
the  truth  beside  the  intrinsic  difficulty  of  the  case.  The 
court  sat  in  order  to  condemn  Joan  to  death,  as  all  its 
members  well  knew,  reminded  from  time  to  time  by  the 
growing  impatience  of  the  English  soldiers  and  by  the 
exhibition  of  Cauchon's  fixed  purpose.  It  was  nearly  as 
much  as  a  man's  life  was  worth  to  express  a  doubt  of 
Joan's  guilt  or  of  the  validity  of  the  proceedings.  Those 
who  did  so  generally  left  Rouen  at  once.1  Under  the 
circumstances,  a  doubting  and  timid  priest  dared  not 
openly  withstand  Cauchon,  but,  in  the  deliberations  of 
the  court,  generally  voted  for  delay  at  every  stage  of  the 
proceedings,  meanwhile  trying  to  induce  Joan  to  con- 
fess her  guilt  or  promise  obedience,  in  the  hope  that  she 
might  be  let  off  with  imprisonment  rather  than  be  put  to 
death. 

Joan's  partisan  enemies,  also,  had  changed  their  attitude 
during  her  examination.     At  first,  they  had  been  so  sure 
of  their  case  that  they  were  ready  to  give  her  a  fair  trial, 
i  See  P.  ii.  348. 


298  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

intending  to  get  both  conclusive  proof  of  guilt  and,  at 
last,  a  full  confession  of  it.  Instead  of  confessing  guilt, 
she  had  practically  disproved  some  of  the  charges  against 
her,  had  left  the  truth  of  others  in  doubt,  and  had  con- 
fessed nothing,  except  the  leap  from  the  tower  at  Beau- 
revoir.  Cauchon  had  not  been  able  even  to  bribe  her 
to  change  her  dress.  He  and  his  supporters  had  come  to 
realize  that  many  of  their  colleagues  were  beginning  to 
pity  her,  and  they  devoted  themselves  not  only  to  proving 
Joan  guilty,  but  to  making  her  appear  guilty  by  fair 
means  or  foul. 

The  two  strongest  reasons  for  believing  Joan  to  be  a 
witch  were  her  dress  and  her  insubordination ;  wrong  in 
themselves,  these  things  also  made  it  unlikely  that  she 
was  visited  by  saintly  counselors.  So  important  was  it  to 
convince  the  doubters  of  her  obduracy,  that  at  this  time 
Cauchon  probably  did  not  wish  her  to  yield  on  either  of 
these  points,  while  he  tried  to  make  her  obstinacy  odious 
to  the  assessors.  On  Palm  Sunday,  March  25,  with  three 
or  four  men  upon  whom  he  could  rely,  he  went  to  Joan's 
cell  and  asked  her  if  she  would  put  on  women's  clothes 
provided  she  were  allowed  to  hear  mass  in  them.  The 
great  importance  which  he  attached  to  the  matter  and  the 
high  price  which  he  offered  for  her  consent  strengthened 
Joan's  suspicions,  as  he  probably  wished ;  and  she  refused, 
asking  to  hear  mass  dressed  as  she  was,  and  saying  that 
her  clothes  did  not  burden  her  conscience.  The  prose- 
cuting attorney,  Estivet,  thereupon  took  a  note  of  her 
contumacy.1 

At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  Joan's  submission  to 
the  church  would  have  been  very  embarrassing  to  Cau- 
chon, for  it  would  certainly  have  caused  delay,  beside 
strengthening  the  friendliness  felt  for  her  by  some  of  the 
assessors.  Several  of  these  were  trying  to  induce  her  to 
submit,  and  Cauchon  thought  it  best  to  make  her  most 
1  P.  i.  191  et  seq. 


THE  ARTICLES.  299 

generous  offers ;  but  he  worded  them  so  as  to  rouse  her 
suspicions  and  caused  her  to  be  privately  warned  by 
Loiseleur  or  some  other  spy  that,  if  she  submitted  to  the 
church,  she  would  find  that  she  had  submitted  to  himself. 
Very  probably  Joan  perceived  this  without  Loiseleur's 
help.1 

On   Tuesday  in   Holy  Week,   March   27,  Joan  was 
brought  from  her  cell  to  a  chamber  of  the  cas- 
tle where  were  assembled  the  bishop,  the  vice-in-  27-28, 
quisitor,  and  about  forty  assessors.    Before  read- 
ing the  articles  of  indictment,  Estivet  addressed  the  court, 
praying  that  Joan  be  compelled  to  answer  on  oath  the 
several  articles  to  the  best  of  her  knowledge  and  belief, 
and  that,  if  she  refused  to  swear,  she  be  considered  in 
default  and  excommunicated  accordingly.      Should  she 
fail  to  answer  any  of  the  counts  after  swearing  to  do  so, 
he  asked  that  they  be  taken  as  proved  against  her.2 

The  court  took  this  request  under  advisement,  and 
Cauchon  called  upon  the  assessors,  one  after  another,  to 
deliver  their  opinions.  The  first  who  spoke,  a  canon  of 
Rouen,  eagerly  voted  to  proceed  as  Estivet  had  asked. 
Another  canon,  who  spoke  next,  suggested  that  the  indict- 
ment should  first  be  read,  and  his  opinion  was  supported 
by  the  two  canons  who  followed  him.3  Thereafter  nearly 
as  many  opinions  were  expressed  as  there  were  assessors, 
but  only  seven  or  eight  of  those  voting  were  ready  to 
grant  the  prosecutor's  request,  while  many  of  them  de- 
clared that  Joan  ought  to  have  time  for  considering  her 
answer,  in  case  she  wished  it.4 

1  P.  ii.  327,  Houppeville  ;  332,  Massieu. 

2  P.  i.  195  et  seq. 

8  It  is  to  be  observed  that  Venderes,  the  first  canon,  took  office 
after  the  English  capture  of  the  city,  while  Pinchon,  the  second,  had 
been  chosen  before  the  war  broke  out.  See  Beaurepaire,  Notes  sur 
lesjuges,  88,  94. 

4  P.  i.  198  et  seq. 


300  JOAN   OF   AKC. 

Cauchon  accepted  the  vote  with  as  good  a  grace  as  he 
could  assume,  and  bade  Joan  answer  as  to  those  matters 
of  which  she  had  knowledge,  offering  her  a  reasonable 
delay,  if  she  desired  delay  in  answering  any  particular 
article.  He  then  made  her  a  little  address,  saying  that 
the  court  intended  to  proceed  with  all  kindness  and  gen- 
tleness, seeking  not  to  punish  her  body,  but  to  bring  her 
back  into  the  way  of  truth  and  salvation.  He  told  her 
that  she  might  choose  one  or  more  of  the  persons  pres- 
ent to  act  as  her  counsel,  and  he  offered,  if  she  so  desired, 
to  make  the  choice  himself.1 

No  doubt  this  speech  had  its  effect  upon  the  timid 
assessors,  who  wished  to  believe  that  Cauchon  was  acting 
with  reasonable  fairness,  but  there  was  no  one  whom  Joan 
dared  to  trust.  "  For  what  you  say  about  my  well-being 
and  our  Christian  faith,"  2  she  said,  "  I  thank  you  and  all 
the  present  company.  For  your  offer  of  counsel,  I  thank 
you,  too,  but  I  have  no  intention  of  leaving  the  counsel 
of  our  Lord.  As  to  the  oath  which  you  wish  me  to  take, 
I  am  ready  to  swear  to  tell  the  truth  about  all  which  con- 
cerns this  trial  of  yours."  3 

Courcelles,  a  learned  delegate  of  the  University  of 
Paris,  then  stood  up,  and,  after  a  short  opening,  in  which 
he  exhausted  upon  Joan  the  vocabulary  of  abuse,4  began 
to  read  the  indictment.5  It  was  a  portentous  instrument,6 
in  seventy  articles  or  counts,  the  reading  of  which,  with 
Joan's  comments,  took  the  rest  of  that  day  and  the  whole 

1  P.  i.  200. 

2  "  Nostre  foy." 
8  P.  i.  201. 

4  Apparently  this  preface  was  written  by  Estivet,  and  merely  read 
by  Courcelles.  No  doubt  the  abuse  was  partly  a  technical  summary 
of  the  articles. 

6  I  use  the  word  "  indictment "  as  expressing  better  than  any  other 
one  English  word  the  nature  of  the  articles  proposed  by  the  "  pro- 
motor  seu  procurator  officii." 

6  P.  i.  204-323. 


THE   ARTICLES.  301 

of  the  next.  The  first  three  counts  were  introductory, 
the  last  five  a  rhetorical  peroration  with  conclusions  of 
law ;  the  remaining  sixty-two  accused  her  of  heresy,  witch- 
craft, idolatry  or  blasphemy  in  connection  with  nearly 
every  event  of  her  life.  Four  concerned  the  use  of  charms 
in  her  childhood,1  six  the  wearing  of  men's  clothes,2  three 
her  political  and  military  conduct,3  five  her  correspondence 
with  the  count  of  Armagnac,4  five  her  arms  and  banner,5 
three  her  leap  at  Beaurevoir,6  twelve  or  more  her  visions 
and  voices ; 7  only  one  specifically  charged  her  refusal  to 
submit  to  the  church.8  Other  counts  concerned  her  life 
at  Neufchateau  and  Vaucouleurs,  her  relations  with  her 
early  suitor  and  with  Baudricourt,  her  boastfulness,  pre- 
sumptuousness,  and  love  of  riches. 

Nearly  every  one  of  these  counts  was  followed  by  ex- 
cerpts from  Joan's  testimony,  as  if  to  support  the  charge 
therein  contained.  Not  uncommonly,  however,  the  testi- 
mony cited  was  a  formal  denial.  Thus  the  seventh  count 
charged  Joan  with  carrying  about  the  herb  mandragora 
in  reliance  upon  its  efficacy,  while  the  testimony  cited  to 
sustain  the  count  consisted  simply  of  her  assertion  that 
she  had  never  carried  mandragora,  had  not  even  see  it, 
did  not  know  what  it  was  good  for,  and  did  not  believe 
in  it.9  So  the  forty-seventh  count,  which  charged  her 
with  blasphemous  swearing,  was  supported  by  three  sev- 
eral denials  that  she  had  ever  done  anything  of  the  sort.10 
Only  once  was  any  testimony  cited  except  her  own.  The 
fifty-sixth  count  rested  upon  the  statement  of  Catherine 
of  La  Rochelle  made  to  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  of 
Paris.  Somehow  or  other  that  foolish  woman  had  found 
her  way  to  the  capital,  perhaps  with  the  intention  of 
carrying  out  her  favorite  plan  of  converting  the  duke  of 

1  iv.-vii.  2  xii.-xvi.,  xl.  3  xviii.,  liii.,  liv. 

4  xxvi.-xxx.  5  xix.-xxi.,  Iviii.,  lix.  6  xli.,  xlvii.,  Ixiv. 

7  xxxi.-xxxvii.,  xlii.-xlv.,  xlviii.,  li.,  Ivi.  8  Ixi. 

9  P.  i.  213.  10  P.  i.  272. 


302  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

Burgundy.  Being  taken  in  hand  by  the  English  authori- 
ties, she  had  vented  her  spite  against  Joan  by  telling  a 
story  about  two  Councilors  of  the  Fountain,  said  to  be 
in  Joan's  service,  and  by  a  warning  that  Joan,  unless 
well  watched,  would  escape  from  prison  with  the  Devil's 
help.  Possibly  the  whole  affair  was  planned  by  La 
Tremoille ;  at  any  rate,  the  Parisian  authorities  were  so 
well  satisfied  with  Catherine  that  they  let  her  go  back  to 
Charles.  Joan  answered  this  farrago  by  saying  that  she 
did  not  know  what  a  Councilor  of  the  Fountain  might  be, 
though  she  thought  that  the  saints  had  once  spoken  to 
her  at  the  fountain  near  Domremy ;  on  her  oath  she  did 
not  wish  to  be  taken  out  of  prison  by  the  Devil.1 

As  Estivet  read  the  counts  one  by  one,  Joan  was  called 
on  to  answer  them  severally.  Many  times  she  simply 
referred  her  judges  to  what  she  had  said  already ;  some- 
times, exasperated  or  wearied  by  their  misunderstandings, 
she  told  them  that  she  left  the  whole  matter  to  God.2 
Though  she  had  usually  been  cautious  in  her  answers, 
even  at  the  beginning  of  the  proceedings,  yet  occasionally 
she  had  been  very  frank,  perhaps  hoping  that  some  of  her 
judges  meant  to  treat  her  fairly.  She  remembered  that 
she  had  formerly  been  able  to  win  over  hostile  or  indiffer- 
ent hearers,  and  she  may  have  hoped  to  do  so  again; 
there  had  been  a  time  when  she  had  hoped  that  even  the 
English  generals  would  heed  her.  As  she  came  to  under- 
stand fully  that  Cauchon  and  those  who  controlled  her 
trial  intended  by  all  means  to  convict  her,  she  suspected 
a  trap  in  every  question,  and  was  unwilling  to  do  anything 
they  asked  of  her.  Generally,  she  was  right  in  refusing, 
but  her  conduct  furnished  an  excuse  to  those  assessors 
who  dared  not  declare  her  innocent,  and  yet  did  not  wish 
unjustly  to  declare  her  guilty.  To  the  charge  that  she 
would  not  put  off  men's  clothes,  even  to  receive  the 

1  P.  i.  295  et  seq.  ;  iv.  473,  n.  ;  Beaucourt,  ii.  268. 

2  P.  i.  284,  291,  295. 


THE   ARTICLES.  303 

Eucharist,  a  matter  concerning  which  she  had  long  hesi- 
tated, she  now  said  definitely  that  she  would  not  change 
her  dress  to  receive  the  sacrament,  or  for  any  other  pur- 
pose.1 The  next  count,  the  fifteenth,  charged  her  with 
pretending  that  to  obey  her  judges  in  this  matter  would 
displease  God.  Joan  answered  that  she  would  rather  die 
than  renounce  what  she  had  done  by  the  commandment 
of  our  Lord,  and  that  as  yet  she  could  not  change  her 
dress,  or  even  fix  a  time  for  changing  it.2  By  his  per- 
sistent demands,  Cauchon  had  brought  her  to  believe  that 
her  dress,  instead  of  being  a  matter  of  expediency,  as  she 
had  once  considered  it,  was  a  divinely  ordered  part  of 
her  mission.  If  the  judges  would  not  let  her  hear  mass, 
she  added,  it  was  in  our  Lord's  power  to  cause  her  to  hear 
it  in  spite  of  them,  when  it  pleased  Him. 

Notwithstanding  the  number  of  the  counts,  their  ambi- 
guity and  want  of  arrangement,  and  the  rapidity  with 
which  she  was  forced  to  reply  to  them,  Joan  showed  great 
keenness  and  discrimination  in  her  answers.  They 
charged  her  with  asserting  that  she  was  sent  by  God  for 
violence  and  bloodshed.  "First  I  asked  them  to  make 
peace,"  said  Joan,  "and  in  case  they  would  not  make 
peace,  I  was  ready  to  fight."  3  When  they  reported  that 
she  had  said,  "  All  that  I  have  done  is  by  the  counsel  of 
our  Lord,"  she  corrected  them,  "  All  the  good  that  I  have 
done."  4  The  fifty-first  count  charged  her  with  boasting 
that  Gabriel  had  come  to  her  with  a  million  of  angels. 
Joan  replied  that  she  did  not  remember  having  mentioned 
the  number.5  "  Contrary  to  the  commands  of  God  and 
the  saints,"  so  ran  the  fifty-third  count,  "the  said  Joan 
presumptuously  and  proudly  undertook  the  government 
of  men,  by  constituting  herself  the  chief  and  leader  of  an 
army  sometimes  numbering  sixteen  thousand  men,  in 
which  were  princes,  barons,  and  many  other  nobles,  all  of 

1  P.  i.  225.  2  P.  i.  227.  3  P.  i.  243. 

4  P.  i.  250.  6  P.  i.  283. 


304  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

whom  she  caused  to  serve  under  her,  as  under  a  com- 
mander-in-chief."  "If  I  was  commander-in-chief,"  said 
Joan,  "  it  was  to  beat  the  English."  1 

Even  in  answering  the  indictment,  Joan  spoke  once  or 
twice  with  her  old  frankness,  perhaps  in  the  faint  hope 
that  some  of  her  judges  might  yet  be  persuaded  of  the 
truth.2  The  fiftieth  count  charged  her  with  calling  her 
voices  to  her  help  and  consulting  them  about  her  answers. 
"  I  will  call  them  to  my  help  as  long  as  I  live,"  said  Joan. 
"  How  do  you  pray  to  them  ?  "  asked  Cauchon.  "  I  beg 
our  Lord  and  our  Lady  to  send  me  counsel  and  comfort, 
and  they  send  it  to  me."  "  By  what  words  do  you  pray 
to  them  ? "  insisted  the  judge.  "  Dearest  God,  for  the 
honor  of  your  holy  passion,  I  pray  you,  if  you  love  me, 
tell  me  how  I  ought  to  answer  these  priests.  As  for  my 
dress,  I  know  well  the  command  I  had  to  put  it  on,  but  I 
do  not  know  how  I  ought  to  take  it  off.  Therefore  please 
you  teach  me.  Then  they  come  to  me  soon."  "  Through 
my  voices  I  often  hear  news  of  you,"  she  added.  "  What 
do  they  say  of  me?"  asked  the  astonished  and  curious 
bishop,  not  quite  easy  in  his  mind.  "  I  will  tell  you  when 
we  are  alone  together,"  said  Joan.  "  To-day  they  have 
come  to  me  three  times,"  she  went  on  with  the  same 
frankness.  "  Were  they  in  your  chamber  ?  "  asked  Cau- 
chon. "I  have  told  you  about  that,"  Joan  answered, 
half  amused  and  half  irritated  at  the  bare  materialism 
of  the  questions ;  "  at  any  rate,  I  heard  them  well.  St. 
Catherine  and  St.  Margaret  told  me  how  I  should  an- 
swer about  this  dress  of  mine." 3  On  that  occasion,  as 
on  many  others,  probably  they  had  told  her  to  answer 
boldly. 

In  reply  to  the  sixty-first  count,  which  charged  her 
with  refusing  to  submit  her  deeds  to  the  church  militant, 
Joan  had  said  that  she  wished  to  render  to  the  church 
all  possible  honor  and  reverence,  but  that  she  must  sub- 

i  P.  i.  293.  -  See  P.  ii.  361,  Miget.  3  P.  i.  279. 


THE  ARTICLES.  305 

mit  her  deeds  to  our  Lord,  who  had  made  her  do  them. 
Being  further  pressed,  she  had  asked  three  days'  delay, 
until  Saturday.1  On  Saturday,  being  Easter  Eve,  Marcll 
Cauchon  visited  her  in  prison  with  eight  or  nine  31> 1431> 
of  his  trustiest  assessors.  Joan  had  taken  counsel  of  her 
voices  and  had  made  up  her  mind  what  to  say.  Cauchon 
asked  her  if  she  would  submit  to  the  church  all  she  had 
done,  both  good  and  bad,  including  the  crimes  with  which 
she  was  charged.  She  answered  that  she  would  leave  all 
to  the  church  militant,  provided  that  it  did  not  bid  her  do 
that  which  was  impossible.  "  What  do  you  consider  im- 
possible ? "  asked  the  bishop.  "  It  is  impossible  that  I 
should  declare  that  what  I  have  done  and  said,  and  what 
I  have  testified  to  at  this  trial  about  my  visions  and  reve- 
lations, has  not  been  done  and  said  by  God's  orders," 
said  Joan ;  "  and  these  things  I  will  not  deny  on  any  ac- 
count ;  and  that  which  God  has  commanded  me  and  shall 
command  me  to  do,  I  will  not  renounce  for  any  man  liv- 
ing, and  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  deny  God's  orders.  In 
case  the  church  shall  wish  to  make  me  do  anything  con- 
trary to  the  commandment  God  has  given  me,  I  will  not 
do  it  on  any  account."  2 

The  answer  showed  an  obstinacy  so  satisfactory  that 
Cauchon  thought  he  might  press  her  even  farther,  for  the 
satisfaction  of  the  doubting  assessors.  Suppose  that  the 
church  militant  should  say  that  her  revelations  were  either 
mere  delusions,  or  else  the  wiles  of  the  Devil,  would  she 
submit  them  to  the  church,  he  craftily  asked.  Joan  re- 
plied that  she  would  submit  her  deeds  to  our  Lord,  whose 
commandment  she  would  always  obey.  That  which  she 
had  testified  about  in  the  trial  had  happened  to  her  by 
God's  appointment,  and  whatever  she  had  declared  in  the 
trial  that  she  had  done  by  his  commandment  she  could 
not  deny.  In  case  the  church  militant  should  command 
her  to  deny  it,  she  would  not  allow  any  man  in  the  world, 
1  P.  i.  314.  2  P.  i.  324. 


306  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

but  only  our  Lord,  to  forbid  her  to  do  his  good  com- 
mands. Did  she  not  think  that  she  was  subject  to  the 
church  on  earth,  that  is  to  say,  the  pope,  cardinals,  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  and  other  prelates,  insisted  Cauchon, 
wishing  to  clinch  the  matter.  "Yes,  our  Lord  being 
first  served," 1  said  Joan.  The  answer  was  not  altogether 
what  Cauchon  had  expected,  and,  changing  the  form  of 
the  question,  he  asked  if  it  was  by  the  command  of  her 
voices  that  she  refused  to  submit  to  the  church  militant 
on  earth.  Joan  replied  that  her  answers  did  not  come 
out  of  her  own  head,  but  were  made  by  the  command  of 
her  voices,  and  these  did  not  command  her  to  disobey  the 
church,  our  Lord  being  first  served.2  Cauchon  dropped 
the  matter  and  left  the  prison.  Joan  passed  her  Easter 
without  mass  or  communion. 

The  articles  of  indictment  prepared  by  Estivet,  corn- 
April  1-4,  prehensive  as  they  were,  did  not  satisfy  the 
1431.  court.  On  some  of  the  counts  it  was  impossible 
for  a  self-respecting  man  to  find  Joan  guilty.  During  sev- 
eral days  in  Easter  week,  Cauchon  and  some  picked  asses- 
sors labored  to  reduce  the  unwieldy  indictment  to  a  series 
of  findings  not  too  outrageously  unfair.  Apart  from  his 
exordium  and  peroration,  as  has  been  said,  Estivet  had 
framed  sixty-two  articles.  More  than  twenty-five  of 
these  were  now  passed  over  altogether,3  and  several  others 
in  large  part ;  what  remained  was  condensed  into  twelve 
articles,  of  which  the  first  was  both  an  introduction  and  a 
synopsis.  The  other  eleven  severally  dealt  with  the  sign 
given  to  Charles,  Joan's  belief  in  her  saintly  visitors,  her 
prophecies,  dress,  and  manner  of  signing  her  letters,  her 
relations  with  Baudricourt  and  the  king,  her  leap  at  Beau- 
re  voir,  her  assurance  of  salvation,  her  statement  that  her 

1  "  Ouil,  uostre  Sire  premier  servi."     P.  i.  326. 

2  P.  i.  325  et  seq. 

3  iv.-ix.,  xi.,  xx.,  xxi.,  xxvi.-xxx.,  xlii.,  xlvii.,  lii.-lix.,  Ixiii.,  Ixv.,  and 
perhaps  others. 


THE  ARTICLES.  307 

voices  favored  the  French,  her  veneration  of  the  voices, 
and  her  refusal  to  submit  to  the  church.  Her  belief  in 
charms,  her  Councilors  of  the  Fountain,  her  suitor,  her 
armor,  ring  and  banner,  her  assertion  that  St.  Michael 
had  hair,  her  fighting  on  feast  days,  her  correspondence 
with  the  count  of  Armagnac  and  her  love  of  riches,  all 
this  and  much  more  disappeared.1 

In  their  form,  these  twelve  new  articles  differed  alto- 
gether from  Estivet's  seventy.2  They  were  not  framed  as 
an  indictment,  but  resembled  what  is  called  technically  a 
special  verdict ;  that  is  to  say,  a  bare  statement  of  facts 
upon  which  the  court  might  base  its  decision  concerning 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused.  The  twelve  arti- 
cles were  free  from  vituperation,  and  stated  nothing 
which  had  not  some  support  from  Joan's  testimony,  but 
they  were  skillfully  prepared  to  give  the  most  unfavorable 
impression  consistent  with  literal  truth.  Though  these 
articles  were  never  approved  by  the  great  body  of  asses- 
sors, they  were  ever  afterwards  taken  as  a  correct  abstract 
of  Joan's  life,  acts,  and  confessions. 

1  P.  i.  328-336. 

2  Seventy,  including  the  introduction  and  conclusion. 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 
THE  CONVICTION  AND  THE  KECANTATION. 

AFTER  Cauchon  had  thus  found  the  facts  of  the  case  to 
April  5-  hig  satisfaction,  he  prepared  to  take  the  next  step 
17, 1431.  jn  f-ke  proceedings,  and  to  determine  if  the  facts 
thus  found  established  Joan's  guilt.  He  did  not  propose 
to  pass  upon  this  question  unaided,  and  as  soon  as  the 
articles  were  framed,  on  April  5,  he  submitted  them  to 
the  assessors  and  to  many  learned  men  in  Rouen  and  else- 
where, asking  if  any  part  of  the  language  Joan  had  used 
appeared  to  contradict  the  true  faith,  Holy  Scripture,  the 
Roman  church,  or  the  decisions  of  the  church's  doctors ; 
also,  if  the  same  appeared  scandalous,  rash,  seditious,  in- 
sulting, criminal,  immoral,  or  in  any  way  offensive.  An 
answer  was  requested  in  five  days.1 

The  time  was  far  too  short,  even  for  such  a  tribunal,  and 
almost  immediately  it  seems  to  have  been  extended.  On 
April  12,2  one  week  after  the  articles  were  published, 
twenty-two  doctors  and  learned  men,  most  of  whom  had 
served  as  assessors,  met  in  the  chapel  of  the  archbishop's 
palace.  Some  of  them  were  men  upon  whom  Cauchon 
could  rely,  others  were  indifferent  or  even  friendly  to  Joan. 
Sitting  almost  in  public,  dreading  the  English  soldiers, 
who  were  angry  at  the  law's  delay,  all  those  present 
yielded  and  joined  in  one  opinion.  This  declared  that 
Joan's  visions  did  not  come  from  God,  and  that  the  ad- 
mitted facts  showed  her  to  have  been  guilty  of  conduct 

1  P.  i.  327. 

2  So  in  the  official  report,  i.  337  ;  but  see  424,  425,  428,  where  it  is 
said  to  have  been  April  9. 


THE  CONVICTION  AND  THE   RECANTATION.          309 

scandalous,  irreligious,  and  presumptuous,  of  blasphemy, 
impiety,  schism,  and  heresy.  Many  other  persons  to  whom 
the  articles  were  sent  eagerly  availed  themselves  of  this 
opinion,  and  simply  declared  their  adherence  to  it,  without 
further  comment.  Cauchon  doubtless  intended  that  it 
should  have  this  effect,  and  that  it  should  serve  to  quiet 
uneasy  consciences. 

About  the  middle  of  April,  Joan  fell  ill.  Warwick 
and  the  cardinal  of  Winchester,  having  the  command  in 
Rouen,  sent  for  several  physicians,  to  whom  the  earl  spoke 
with  great  frankness.  On  no  account,  said  he,  was  the 
king  willing  that  Joan  should  die  a  natural  death.  She 
was  dear  to  him,  for  he  had  bought  her  dear,  and  the 
physicians  must  take  good  care  to  cure  her.  They  went 
to  her  cell  accordingly,  and  found  her  feverish  and  sick  at 
the  stomach,  certainly  not  an  unnatural  condition,  when 
the  foul  air  of  the  cell,  her  close  confinement  in  chains, 
and  the  long-continued  strain  upon  her  nerves  are  con- 
sidered. They  felt  her  pulse,  sounded  her  on  the  left  side, 
and  recommended  bleeding,  according  to  the  practice  of 
the  day.  Warwick  hesitated  to  allow  it.  "  Take  care," 
he  said,  "  she  is  tricky,  and  may  kill  herself."  He  yielded 
to  their  advice,  however,  and  she  began  to  mend  at  once  ; 
it  is  needless  to  say  that  she  had  no  more  intention  of 
suicide  than  had  Warwick  himself.1 

Before  her  recovery  was  complete,  Cauchon  visited  her 
again  to  ask  the  oft-repeated  question  about  her  April  is, 
submission  to  the  church.  His  precise  intention  1431> 
is  not  quite  clear.  Her  refusals,  becoming  more  and  more 
obstinate  as  she  became  sure  that  he  meant  only  to  entrap 
her,  undoubtedly  were  persuading  the  hesitating  assessors 
to  find  her  guilty,  and  at  times  Cauchon  plainly  wished 
to  be  refused.  On  the  other  hand,  at  some  time  or 
other  she  must  be  brought  to  submission.  If  she  died 
unrepentant,  the  French  might  still  believe  in  her,  and 
1  P.  iii.  46,  Tiphaine  ;  49,  De  la  Chambre. 


310  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

might  maintain  that  she  had  been  put  to  death  unjustly. 
Cauchon's  original  position,  that  of  a  prejudiced  judge 
who  wishes  justly  to  punish  a  person  undoubtedly  guilty, 
had  gradually  changed  to  that  of  an  advocate,  wishing  by 
all  means  to  convict  an  accused  person,  concerning  whose 
guilt  or  innocence  he  cares  little. 

Having  gone  to  Joan's  cell,  accompanied  by  several 
assessors,  he  told  her  that  they  all  were  come  to  bring  her 
consolation  and  comfort  in  her  sickness.  He  pointed  out 
to  her  that  she  was  illiterate  and  ignorant,  and  again  he 
offered  her  honest  and  benevolent  men  for  her  instruction.1 
He  then  exhorted  the  assessors  present  to  give  her  counsel 
fruitful  for  the  saving  of  her  soul  and  body,  and  he  added 
that  they  all  were  churchmen  willing  and  ready  in  all 
possible  ways  to  help  her  as  they  would  help  their  neigh- 
bors and  themselves.  If  she  refused  to  hear  them,  and 
trusted  to  her  own  judgment  and  to  her  inexperience,  they 
must  leave  her ;  in  that  case  she  must  consider  the  peril 
into  which  she  would  fall,  a  peril  from  which  with  all  his 
strength  and  affection  he  was  seeking  to  save  her.2 

This  discourse  was  highly  edifying  to  the  assessors,  no 
doubt,  but  the  sick  girl  had  come  to  distrust  Cauchon 
so  thoroughly  that  she  disbelieved  what  he  said,  simply 
because  he  said  it.  "Considering  how  sick  I  am,"  she 
answered,  "  it  seems  to  me  that  I  am  in  great  peril  of 
death.  If  so  be  God  wills  to  do  his  pleasure  on  me,  I 
beg  you  to  let  me  be  confessed,  and  receive  my  Saviour, 
and  be  buried  in  consecrated  ground."  3 

Cauchon  told  her  that  she  could  not  be  treated  as  a 
good  Catholic  unless  she  submitted  to  the  church.  "  If 
my  body  dies  in  prison,"  said  Joan,  "  I  depend  upon  your 
putting  it  in  consecrated  ground  ;  if  you  do  not  do  so,  I 
depend  upon  our  Lord."  The  bishop  insisted,  and  the 
discussion  was  continued  between  him  and  Joan  in  the 
usual  fashion,  though  her  answers  are  marked  by  weari- 

1  P.  i.  375.  2  P.  i.  376.  8  P.  i.  377. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE    RECANTATION.          311 

ness.  At  last  Cauchon  asked  her  if  she  did  not  wish  to 
have  made  a  fine  and  notable  procession  in  order  to  bring 
her  back  into  a  good  state,  if  she  was  not  in  one.  Thus 
qualified,  Cauchon's  proposition  seemed  a  fair  one,  but  the 
proposed  procession,  if  authorized  by  Joan,  would  have 
appeared  to  be  a  notable  proof  of  her  repentance  for  her 
evil  deeds.  Joan  answered  that  she  wished  very  much 
that  the  church  and  all  Catholics  should  pray  for  her. 
Thereupon  the  bishop  withdrew.1 

Contests  like  these  did  Joan  no  good,  and  the  foul 
abuse  heaped  upon  her  one  day  by  Estivet,  the  prosecuting 
attorney,  brought  back  her  fever.  The  cautious  Warwick 
interfered  and  forbade  Estivet  access  to  her  cell.  Thus 
relieved,  her  youth  and  healthy  constitution  soon  got  the 
better  of  her  sickness,  as  they  had  done  at  Beaurevoir, 
and  she  was  well  again.2 

In  spite  of  the  threats  of  the  English  and  the  wheedling 
and  ingenuity  of  Cauchon,  the  opinion  of  the  asses-  April  18- 
sors  concerning  Joan's  guilt  was  not  so  decided  ^  1431' 
as  the  bishop  had  hoped.  Some  wished  to  wait  for  the 
opinion  of  the  University  of  Paris,3  some  professed  their 
ignorance  and  wished  to  leave  the  decision  to  those  more 
learned  than  themselves,  others  took  refuge  in  generalities. 
She  was  guilty,  wrote  John  Basset,  provided  that  her  pre- 
tended revelations  did  not  come  from  God  ;  "  which  I  do 
not  believe,"  he  added  in  his  timid  perplexity.4  Three 
others  were  more  outspoken  in  their  doubt.  If  Joan's 
statements  proceeded  from  an  evil  spirit  or  were  made 
up  by  herself,  they  were  as  bad  as  the  bishop's  questions 
implied  ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  came  from  God,  which 

1  P.  i.  377  et  seq. 

2  P.  iii.  48,  Tiphaine  ;  52,  De  la  Chambre.     Apparently,  Joan 
thought  that  her  illness  was  caused  by  eating  a  carp  which  Cauchon 
had  sent  her ;  it  does  not  appear  whether  she  suspected  poison  or 
not. 

a  See  P.  i.  350,  351,  355,  360. 
4  P.  i.  343. 


312  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

was  not  evident,  no  unfavorable  interpretation  should  be 
put  upon  them.1  Even  the  chapter  of  the  cathedral  of 
Rouen  hesitated.  At  the  first  meeting  no  quorum  ap- 
peared, and  it  was  found  necessary  to  threaten  the  absen- 
tees with  the  loss  of  a  week's  rations.  When  the  chapter 
met  a  second  time,  the  majority  refused  to  pass  upon 
Joan's  guilt  until  she  had  again  been  warned  to  submit, 
and  until  the  answer  of  the  University  of  Paris  should 
be  received.2 

Under  these  circumstances  there  was  nothing  for  it  but 
May  2,  *°  send  messengers  to  the  university,  and  to 
1431t  administer  another  "charitable  warning."  On 
May  2,  nearly  a  month  after  he  had  originally  published 
the  twelve  articles,  Cauchon  gathered  a  great  assembly  of 
more  than  sixty  assessors  and  made  them  an  address. 
He  informed  them  that  for  some  time  he  had  known  well 
that  the  woman  was  very  faulty,  though  no  final  judg- 
ment against  her  had  been  rendered.  Before  rendering 
judgment,  it  had  seemed  to  many  honest  and  conscien- 
tious men  that  he  ought  by  every  means  to  try  to  bring 
her  into  the  way  of  truth.  This  had  been  attempted  with 
all  kindness  by  many  learned  doctors,  but,  through  the 
craft  of  the  Devil,  as  yet  nothing  had  been  accomplished  ; 
wherefore  he  had  deputed  John  of  Castillon,  archdeacon 
of  Evreux,  to  reason  with  the  woman  in  the  presence  of 
the  whole  assembly,  and  to  induce  her  to  depart  from  her 
faults  and  crimes.3 

Joan  was  then  brought  before  the  court,  and  was  gen- 
erally warned  by  the  archdeacon  to  mend  her  deeds  and 
words.  When  he  paused,  Joan  advised  him  to  go  on  and 
finish  the  written  address  which  he  held  in  his  hand. 
"  Then,"  said  she,  "  I  will  answer  you.  I  leave  all  to 

1  P.  i.  369. 

2  P.  i.  353,  n. 

3  P.  i.  381  et  seq.     For  Castillon,  see  Beaurepaire,  Notes  sur  les 
juges,  114. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          313 

God,1  my  Creator ;  I  love  Him  with  all  my  heart.  I 
leave  it  to  my  judge,1  who  is  the  King  of  heaven  and 
earth."  Castillon  went  forward,  accordingly,  with  an 
address  in  six  heads,2  concerning  her  clothes,  her  want  of 
submission,  her  boasted  sinlessness,  her  sign  to  Charles, 
her  leap  at  Beaurevoir,  and  other  matters.  His  tone  and 
his  assumptions  were  such  as  to  make  Joan's  submission 
an  impossibility,  and  probably  he,  or  Cauchon  for  him, 
intended  to  prevent  any  submission.^, 

This,  at  any  rate,  was  th^  result/  "  I  am  sure  that  the 
church  militant  can  neither  err  nor  fail,"  said  Joan,  "  but 
as  to  my  deeds  and  words,  I  leave  them  altogether  to 
God,  who  made  me  do  whatever  I  have  done."  If  she 
did  not  submit,  they  told  her,  she  would  be  adjudged  a 
heretic  and  burned.  "  I  will  say  nothing  more  to  you," 
she  answered.  "  Even  if  I  should  see  the  fire,  I  should 
say  what  I  am  saying  now."  3  The  steady  insistence  of 
Cauchon  had  driven  her  to  refuse  submission  much  more 
emphatically  than  she  would  have  done  two  months  be- 
fore. Not  improbably,  also,  Loiseleur  had  been  at  work, 
strengthening  her  suspicions. 

Encouraged  by  her  obstinacy,  Cauchon  risked  an  offer 
bolder  than  any  he  had  yet  made.  Would  she  leave  to 
the  archbishop  of  Rheims,  La  Tremoille,  La  Hire,  and 
others  of  her  own  party,  the  determination  of  the  sign 
shown  to  Charles  VII.,  asked  the  examiner.  Joan  was 
caught  in  her  own  play  upon  words,  for  no  one  but 
herself  understood  her  double  meaning,  and,  besides,  she 
did  not  trust  Cauchon  to  state  the  question  fairly  to  the 
French.  "  Give  me  a  messenger,  and  I  will  write  to  them 
all  about  this  trial,"  she  answered ;  upon  no  other  terms 

1  "  Je  me  actend  a  Dieu,  mon  cre*ateur,  de  tout.    Je  m'en  actend  a 
mon  juge."     Literally,  "  I  wait  upon  God,"  in  the  biblical  sense. 
P.  i.  385. 

2  P.  i.  386-392. 

3  P.  i.  392,  393. 


314  JOAN   OF   ABC. 

would  she  accept  their  decision.  Supposing  that  three 
or  four  knights  of  her  own  party  should  be  brought  to 
Rouen  by  safe-conduct,  would  she  leave  the  matter  of  her 
visions  to  their  decision,  insisted  the  bishop,  who  saw  that 
she  was  ready  to  refuse  everything.  Joan  told  him  to  bring 
the  men  first,  and  then  she  would  answer  him.  She  feared, 
as  he  intended  her  to  fear,  that  he  was  tricking  her,  or, 
perhaps,  that  some  knights  of  La  Tremoille's  faction 
might  be  found  who  would  not  be  unwilling  to  condemn 
her.  Her  obstinacy  satisfied  Cauchon,  and  he  closed  the 
hearing,  warning  her  solemnly  that  she  was  in  danger  of 
being  abandoned  by  the  church,  and  so  of  losing  her  soul 
in  eternal,  her  body  in  temporal  fire.  He  could  not  cow 
her.  "  You  cannot  do  to  me  as  you  say,"  she  answered, 
"  without  evil  befalling  you,  both  body  and  soul." l 

At  last  the  chapter  of  Rouen  was  convinced,  and  de- 
May  4-8,  clared  its  belief  that  Joan  was  a  heretic,  basing 
its  opinion  largely  upon  her  refusal  to  submit 
to  the  judgment  of  those  of.^ner  own  party.2  Some 
other  waverers  were  won  over,3  and  nearly  all  the  per- 
sons consulted  committed  themselves  in  writing  to  the 
opinion  that  Joan  was  guilty.  Cauchon  could  trust  the 
University  of  Paris,  whose  opinion  had  not  yet  come  to 
hand. 

Though  he  had  brought  the  assessors  to  agree  to  Joan's 
condemnation,  the  bishop  knew  well  that  more  remained 
to  be  done.  Had  she  submitted  to  the  church  at  any 
time  before  the  assessors  had  agreed  that  she  was  guilty, 
he  might  not  have  been  able  to  secure  that  agreement ;  at 
any  rate,  there  might  have  been  indefinite  delay.  Now 
that  her  guilt  was  established,4  to  secure  her  submission 

1  P.  i.  396  et  seq. 

2  P.  i.  353,  355.     The  opinion  of  the  chapter  was  dated  May  4. 

3  See  P.  i.  349,  356. 

4  The  proceedings  of  the  French  tribunal  differ  so  much  from  those 
of  a  modern  English  court  that  it  is  hard  to  find  apt  words  to  describe 
them.    By  their  written  opinions,  the  assessors  and  other  persons  con- 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          315 

was  become  a  moral  necessity,  in  order  that  she  might  be 
shown  to  the  world  a  self-confessed  impostor  or  a  witch. 
That  very   submission   which   Cauchon   had   feared   she 
might  make  only  a  few  days  before,  he  was  now  most 
anxious  to  force  upon  her.     He  knew  that  the  task  would 
not  be   easy,   but  he   had   one   method  as  yet   May  9, 
untried.     On  May  9,  a  week  after  his  last  chari-  1431> 
table  warning,  Joan  was  brought  into  the  donjon  of  the 
castle,  where  were  placed  the  rack  and  other  instruments 
of  torture. 

Cauchon  requested  her  to  tell  the  truth  in  those  mat- 
ters about  which  she  had  lied  at  her  trial.  He  showed 
the  instruments  of  torture  set  out  before  her,  and  pointed 
to  the  men  who,  as  he  said,  were  ready  at  his  command 
to  put  her  to  the  torment  in  order  to  bring  her  back  into 
the  way  of  truth  and  salvation. 

"  In  truth,"  Joan  answered,  "  if  you  tear  me  limb  from 
limb,  and  make  my  soul  leave  my  body,  I  will  tell  you 
nothing  but  what  I  have  told  you  already ;  and,  if  I  shall 
say  anything  else,  hereafter  I  will  always  declare  that  you 
made  me  say  it  by  force."  t  She  went  on  to  tell  them  that 
she  had  asked  her  voices  ii  she  ought  to  submit  to  the 
church ;  they  had  told  her  that  if  she  wished  our  Lord 
to  help  her,  she  must  leave!  all  her  d^eds  to  Him.  She 
knew  well  that  our  Lord  bad  beeif  the  master  of  her 
deeds,  and  that  the  Enemy  neveir  had  had  power  over 
them.  She  had  asked  her  voice/  if  she  should  be  burnt, 
and  they  had  told  her  to  leave  herself  in  God's  hands 
and  He  would  help  her.1  The  court  had  not  determined 
to  put  her  to  actual  torture,  $6  she  was  taken  back  to  her 
cell  and  left  there  in  suspense.  The  wretch  who  should 
have  tortured  her  testified  afterwards  that  she  answered 
so  discreetly  that  the  assessors  were  amazed.2 

suited  had  declared  their  belief  that  Joan  was  guilty  ;  but  the  formal 
judgment  of  guilty  was  not  yet  rendered. 

1  P.  i.  399  et  seq.  2  P.  iii.  185,  Leparmentier. 


316  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

After  three  days,  Cauchon  summoned  thirteen  l  asses- 
May  12,  sors  to  his  house  and  asked  them  if  they  thought 
1431-  it  advisable  to  put  Joan  to  the  torture.  The 
first  who  gave  his  opinion,  a  canon  of  influence  and  im- 
portance,2 said  that  the  trial  had  hitherto  been  so  well 
managed  that  it  ought  not  to  be  brought  into  disrepute. 
The  large  majority,  including  the  vice-inquisitor,  agreed 
to  this  decision.  One  of  them  observed  that  there  was 
plenty  of  proof  without  torture,  some  thought  that  tor- 
ture was  inexpedient  for  the  time,  some  even  wished  that 
still  another  "  charitable  warning "  should  be  adminis- 
tered. Three  only  voted  for  torture,  —  Morel,  a  lawyer ; 
Courcelles,  a  deputy  of  the  University  of  Paris  ;  and  the 
spy  Loiseleur,  the  last  saying  that  it  seemed  to  him  well 
to  torture  Joan  for  the  healing  of  her  soul.  Eleven  were 
on  the  side  of  mercy.3  How  much  their  votes  were  gov- 
erned by  pity  for  Joan,  how  much  by  other  reasons,  is 
not  clear ;  many  assessors  did  pity  her  sincerely.  Prob- 
ably Joan  was  given  no  notice  of  this  vote,  and  so  was 
left  day  after  day  to  expect  another  call  to  the  torture 
chamber. 

About  a  week  later,  the  men  deputed  to  visit  the  Uni- 
May  19,  versity  of  Paris  returned  to  Rouen.  They  had 
1431«  taken  with  them  letters  from  the  English  royal 
council  and  from  Cauchon,4  and  they  had  been  received 
with  much  honor.  They  brought  back  a  dutiful  letter  to 
Henry  VI.,  and  a  fulsome  address  to  the  bishop,  very 
different  from  the  sharp  complaints  which  the  university 
had  made  to  him  when  it  believed  him  to  be  backward 
in  prosecuting  Joan.  "  May  the  Great  Shepherd  when 
He  shall  appear,"  so  the  last  sentence  ran,  "  deign  to  re- 

1  Besides  Lemaitre,  vicar  of  the  inquisitor-general. 

2  Raoul  Roussel.     See  Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  90. 

3  P.  i.  403.     Seven  of  these  had  been  present  at  Joan's  refusal  to 
testify. 

4  P.  i.  409. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          317 

ward  your  shepherdlike  care  with  an  immortal  crown  of 

glory-"1 

The  substance  of  the  university's  message  was  con- 
tained in  two  elaborate  opinions,  rendered  by  the  faculties 
of  theology  and  of  canon  law  and  adopted  by  the  whole 
university,  concerning  the  guilt  of  Joan  as  manifested 
in  the  twelve  articles.  These  opinions  admitted  neither 
doubt  nor  condition  of  any  sort.  Her  visions  were  either 
lies  manufactured  by  herself  or  the  productions  of  Satan, 
Belial,  and  Behemoth.  She  was  declared  to  be  boastful, 
foolish,  treacherous,  deceitful,  cruel,  bloodthirsty,  sedi- 
tious, blasphemous,  undutif ul,  rash,  a  fatalist,  uncharitable, 
idolatrous,  schismatical,  apostate,  and  finally  a  heretic. 
One  argument  of  the  faculty  of  canon  law  is  worth  re- 
peating. She  lies,  said  the  faculty,  in  saying  that  she  is 
sent  by  God,  for  she  shows  no  miracle  or  particular  testi- 
mony of  Scripture,  like  Moses,  who  turned  his  rod  into 
a  serpent  and  back  again  into  a  rod,  or  like  John  the 
Baptist,  who  said  of  himself,  "  I  am  the  voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  as  saith  the  prophet  Isaiah."2 
If  Joan  had  applied  to  herself  some  passage  of  Scripture, 
it  seems  that  she  might  have  passed  for  orthodox. 

Cauchon  caused  these  decisive  letters  to  be  read  in  the 
presence  of  a  great  body  of  assessors,  and  then  asked 
them  one  by  one  3  what  ought  next  to  be  done  in  the  case. 
Many  accepted  the  opinion  of  the  university  as  to  Joan's 
heresy,  and  advised  that  she  be  handed  over  at  once  to 
the  secular  arm.  Many  were  willing  to  declare  her  a 
heretic  without  qualification,  but  would  not  condemn 
her  to  death  without  another  "  charitable  warning."  Sev- 
eral desired  a  "  charitable  warning  "  before  pronouncing 
on  her  heresy.4  In  some  way  or  other  the  "  charitable 

1  P.  i.  410. 

2  P.  i.  418. 

3  P.  i.  404,  422. 

4  Such  as  Houdenc,  Maugier,  Grouchet,  and  others.     P.  i.  425, 427. 


318  JOAN    OF   ARC. 

warning  "  must  be  given,  and  Cauchon  appointed  it  for 
May  23. 

It  was  delivered  to  Joan  in  a  chamber  near  her  cell  by 
May  23  Peter  Maurice,  a  canon  of  Rouen.1  The  substance 
1431.  of  the  twelve  articles  was  rehearsed,  together 
with  the  abusive  comments  of  the  university.  There  fol- 
lowed an  address,  reasonably  temperate  in  language,  but 
assuming  throughout  Joan's  guilt.  It  closed  as  follows : 
"  Therefore  I  warn,  beseech,  and  exhort  you,  by  the  love 
you  bear  to  the  passion  of  your  Creator,  and  the  desire 
you  have  for  the  safety  of  your  soul  and  body,  that  you 
correct  the  sins  I  have  mentioned  and  return  to  the  way 
of  truth,  by  obeying  the  church  and  submitting  to  its 
judgment.  By  so  doing  you  will  save  your  soul,  and  you 
will,  as  I  think,  redeem  your  body  from  death.  If  you 
do  not  return,  but  persist,  know  that  your  soul  will  fall 
into  damnation  —  and  I  fear  your  body  will  be  destroyed. 
From  all  which  may  Jesus  Christ  deign  to  keep  you." 
"  I  refer  you,"  Joan  answered,  "to  what  I  have  done  and 
said  in  the  trial,  and  that  I  will  uphold."  Would  she 
submit  to  the  church,  they  asked  her  for  the  last  time. 
"  What  I  have  said  and  done  during  the  trial,  I  will  stand 
by,"  she  repeated.  "  If  I  were  now  at  the  judgment  seat, 
and  if  I  saw  the  torch  burning,  and  the  fagots  laid,  and  the 
executioner  ready  to  light  the  fire ;  if  I  were  in  the  fire, 
I  would  say  nothing  else,  and  would  stand  by  what  I  said 
at  the  trial,  even  to  death."  There  was  no  question  left 
to  put.  Cauchon  asked  Estivet  and  Joan  if  they  had 
anything  more  to  say,  and,  as  they  had  not,  he  withdrew. 
In  the  margin  of  the  record,  opposite  her  last  words,  the 
scribe  wrote  his  comment,  "  The  proud  answer  of  Joan."  2 

The  same  day  she  was  formally  served  with  a  summons 
to  appear  next  morning  and  receive  final  sentence.  Be- 

1  None  of  the  assessors  were  present  who  were  inclined  to  favor 
Joan. 

2  P.  i.  437  et  seq. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          319 

fore  beginning  the  account  of  the  last  week  of  her  life, 
with  its  many  remarkable  and  sudden  changes,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  consider  her  state  of  mind. 

Throughout  her  trial,  as  is  made  clear  by  her  answers, 
she  was  sustained  by  the  belief  that  God  and  his  saints 
would  by  some  means  deliver  her.  This  belief,  indeed, 
was  not  constant  and  unwavering ;  at  one  time  she  almost 
expected  to  die  of  fever,  more  than  once  she  faced  the 
possibility  of  death  by  fire.  Nevertheless,  her  voices,  in 
telling  her  to  be  of  good  courage  and  to  answer  boldly, 
had  promised  her  God's  help  if  she  obeyed,  and  her  cour- 
age had  been  kept  up  by  her  belief  in  this  promise.  She 
was  no  ascetic,  no  mediaeval  saint,  and  she  shrank  from 
death  with  the  fear  and  horror  natural  to  a  girl  of  nine- 
teen. As  it  became  certain  that  she  would  be  burnt  if 
she  persisted,  in  spite  of  the  promise  on  which  she  had 
relied,  the  natural  temptation  to  escape  by  submission 
must,  at  times,  have  been  strengthened  by  a  suspicion 
that  the  spirits  who  were  abandoning  her  might  come 
from  the  Devil. 

Had  she  been  left  to  herself  and  to  her  brutal  keepers, 
this  suspicion  probably  would  not  have  greatly  troubled 
her,  but  the  shrewdest  means  were  used  to  increase  it. 
More  and  more  frequently  learned  doctors  and  eloquent 
friars  visited  her,  most  of  them  in  all  kindness  trying  to 
save  her  body  and  soul.  It  was  infinitely  harder  for  her 
to  resist  their  arguments  than  if  she  had  been  a  Hussite 
or  a  Waldensian  heretic.  Such  a  man  would  have  re- 
ceived the  condemnation  of  the  whole  Roman  church,  from 
the  pope  downward,  with  defiant  scorn,  and  would  abso- 
lutely have  refused  to  submit  to  it  at  the  outset  of  his 
trial ;  he  would  have  been  quite  unmoved,  therefore,  by 
the  spiritual  threats  or  the  blandishments  of  his  judges. 
Joan  was  no  heretic,  but  a  simple  and  devout  Catholic. 
She  believed  in  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  she  recognized 
the  authority  of  the  church  and  her  duty  of  submission. 


320  JOAN  OF  ARC. 

This  duty  had  seemed  at  times  incompatible  with  com- 
plete faith  in  her  voices,  but  she  always  held  it  in  theory, 
and  tried  hard  to  reconcile  the  two  things  in  word  and 
action.  When  her  visitors  urged  submission,  they  ap- 
pealed not  only  to  the  weariness  of  chains  and  imprison- 
ment, the  weakness  of  recent  sickness,  the  fear  of  pain, 
the  shrinking  from  insult  and  outrage,  to  her  love  of  life 
and  her  dread  of  death,  but  also  to  the  plainest  teachings 
of  her  childhood. 

The  appeal  was  skillfully  made  by  some  of  the  timid 
May  24,  assessors,  who  had  strained  their  consciences  to 
1431.  condemn  her,  and  hoped  that  she  would  escape 
after  all.  Cauchon  approved,  having  already,  as  is  likely, 
planned  the  manner  of  her  death.  Early  on  the  morning 
of  Thursday,  May  24,  the  day  appointed  for  her  sentence 
and  execution,  several  of  the  assessors  visited  her.  They 
passed  over  all  details  of  wrong-doing,  and  said  nothing 
about  most  of  the  matters  mentioned  in  the  articles.  A 
simple  submission  to  the  church,  they  told  her,  would  be 
sufficient,  and,  as  evidence  of  submission,  a  change  of 
dress.  To  what  they  said  Joan  listened.1 

The  cemetery  of  St.  Ouen,  just  south  of  the  magnifi- 
cent abbey  church,  was  the  place  chosen  for  the  ceremony 
of  Joan's  sentence.  In  the  large  open  space  two  plat- 
forms had  been  built,  one  for  the  judges  and  the  distin- 
guished spectators,  the  other  for  exhibiting  Joan  to  the 
people.2  Early  in  the  morning  she  was  taken  from  her 
cell,  put  into  a  wagon,  and  driven  to  the  place.3  Being 
led  upon  the  platform,  she  found  herself  in  the  presence 
of  a  great  crowd,  assembled  by  the  liveliest  curiosity. 
Before  her,  on  the  other  platform,  beside  Cauchon,  the 
vice-inquisitor,  and  many  of  the  assessors  whom  she  had 
seen  at  her  trial,  were  Cardinal  Beaufort,  the  great-uncle 

1  P.  ii.  20,  Beaupere.     See  P.  iii.  60,  Courcelles. 

2  P.  iii.  54,  Bp.  of  Noyoii ;  61,  Courcelles;  122,  Macy. 

3  P.  ii.  351,  La  Pierre. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          321 

of  Henry  VI.,  Louis  of  Luxemburg,  bishop  of  Therouanne, 
Henry's  chancellor  in  France,  the  English  bishop  of  Nor- 
wich and  the  French  bishop  of  Noyon,  the  great  Norman 
abbots  of  Mont  St.  Michel  and  of  Abelard's  monastery 
of  Bee.  Warwick  and  the  English  captains,  also,  were  in 
the  audience,  with  English  soldiers,  citizens  of  Rouen,  and 
strangers  passing  through  the  town. 

The  church's  sentence  of  condemnation  was  usually  pre- 
ceded by  a  sermon,  which  exhorted  the  sinner  to  repent- 
ance and  improved  his  example  as  a  warning  to  the  mul- 
titude. The  preacher  at  St.  Ouen  was  William  Erard. 
According  to  his  servant,  he  had  no  liking  for  the  duty, 
and  wished  himself  in  Flanders.1  He  did  not  dare  to  re- 
fuse, however,  and,  having  undertaken  the  task,  he  spoke 
with  much  vehemence  from  the  text,  "  The  branch  cannot 
bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine."  In  order 
to  please  his  English  hearers,  he  reviled  Charles  VII.  for 
trusting  in  a  witch  and  seeking  to  recover  his  kingdom  by 
her  aid.  Sitting  near  him  upon  the  same  platform,  Joan 
had  listened  in  silence  to  his  abuse  of  herself,  but  at  this 
remark  she  interrupted  Erard,  and  told  him  not  to  speak 
of  her  king,  inasmuch  as  he  was  a  good  Christian.  "  Si- 
lence her,"  cried  the  angry  preacher.2 

The  sermon  over,  Erard  turned  to  her,  and  in  milder 
phrase  told  her  that  inasmuch  as  she  had  done  some 
things  which  could  not  be  defended,  the  judges  required 
her  to  submit  her  words  and  deeds  to  mother  church.  His 
demand  was  not  merely  formal ;  there  were  pther  priests 
on  the  platform,  and  they  crowded  about  her,  begging  her 
to  submit.  It  was  submission  or  death,  they  told  her ;  the 
executioner  with  his  cart  was  waiting  close  by  to  carry 
her  to  the  stake.3  While  Erard  was  preaching,  Joan's 
voices  had  told  her  to  answer  him  boldly  ,\  and  she  had 

1  P.  iii.  113. 

2  P.  ii.  15,  344,  Manchon  ;  367,  Ladvenu  ;  iii.  54,  Bp.  of  Noyon. 
8  P.  iii.  65,  Monnet ;  147,  149,  Manchon. 

4  P.  i.  456,  J.'s  test. 


322  JOAN  OF   ARC. 

done  so,  but  at  the  thought  of  being  burnt  within  an  hour 
she  wavered  for  the  first  time.  The  priest  said  nothing 
to  her  now  about  the  petty  matters  witB  which  they  had 
harassed  her  at  the  trial.  They  asked  only  submission 
to  the  church,  and  that,  as  she  knew,  priests  were  accus- 
tomed to  ask.  Submission  to  the  church,  it  seemed,  could 
hardly  be  wrong. 

Once  more  her  voices  prevailed.  "  I  will  answer  you," 
she  said.  "  Let  my  deeds  and  words  be  sent  to  Rome  to 
our  holy  father  the  pope,  to  whomy  and  to  God,  first  of  all, 
I  trust  myself.  As  for  the  words  and  deeds  I  have  done, 
I  have  done  them  by  the  commanfi  of  God."  Doubt  had 
entered  her  mind,  however,  and  ilj  found  characteristic  ex- 
pression. "  I  hold  no  one  responsible  for  my  acts,"  she 
went  on,  "  neither  my  king  nor  a|iy  one  else,  and,  if  there 
is  any  fault,  it  is  mine  and  not  another's."  She  was  still 
willing  to  stake  her  own  salvation  on  the  truth  of  her 
voices,  but  not  the  reputation  of  her  king. 

Would  she  recant  those  things  which  had  been  found 
blameworthy  by  the  churchmen,  they  asked  her.  "  I 
leave  all  to  God  and  to  our  holy  father  the  pope,"  she 
answered.  They  told  her  that  the  pope  was  far  away,  and 
that  the  bishops  were  judges,  each  in  his  own  diocese ; 
still  she  would  not  yield.  The  solemn  warning  was  re- 
peated a  second  time  and  a  third,  while  the  priests  labored 
with  her,  asking  only  submission.1 

To  the  English  soldiers  the  delay  seemed  long,  and 
there  were  murmurs  in  the  crowd.  Some  angrily  called 
on  Cauchon  to  pronounce  sentence,  others  threatened  the 
priests  who  surrounded  Joan.  Still  the  bishop  paused, 
determined  to  accomplish  his  purpose ;  but  Joan  did  not 
yield.  At  last  he  arose  and  began  reluctantly  to  read 
the  sentence  of  condemnation  which  delivered  Joan  to 
the  secular  arm,  that  is,  to  death.2  The  priests,  however, 
did  not  give  over  their  efforts,  some  acting  in  good  faith, 
1  P.  i.  444  et  seq.  2  P.  i.  446. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          323 

others  under  Cauchon's  orders.  "  Joan,  do  as  you  are 
told  ;  do  you  want  to  make  us  kill  you  ?  Believe  me,  you 
may  be  saved  if  you  wish.  Change  your  dress,  and  do  as 
you  are  bidden,  otherwise  you  will  be  put  to-  death.  If 
you  do  what  I  tell  you,  you  will  be  saved  j  you  shall  be 
well  off,  and  come  to  no  harm ;  you  shall  be  delivered  up 
to  the  church."  A  paper  was  thrust  into  her  hands ;  she 
hesitated,  they  almost  forced  her  to  sign  it.  In  the  con- 
fusion she  said  something  which  was  taken  for  submission, 
and  they  begged  Cauchon  to  stop.  He  did  so,  willingly 
enough,  but  the  tumult  increased ;  some  called  Cauchon 
a  traitor,  and  stones  were  thrown  at  Joan. 

How  she  signed  the  abjuration  —  indeed,  what  abjura- 
tion she  signed  —  cannot  be  known  with  certainty.  The 
document  which  appears  in  the  report  of  the  trial  she 
never  signed  with  knowledge  of  its  contents.  She  could 
not  read  ;  in  the  great  crowd  of  shouting  people,  she  could 
hardly  have  heard  the  abjuration,  even  if  it  was  read  to 
her.  Some  of  the  lookers-on  thought  that  she  made  her 
mark  upon  a  writing  of  a  few  lines,  and  that  a  longer 
document  was  forged  for  official  use ;  according  to  the 
recollection  of  others,  she  signed  a  document  which  was 
never  explained  to  her.  However  that  may  be,  —  and  Cau- 
chon was  quite  capable  of  forgery,  —  she;  certainly  believed 
that  she  promised  simply  to  submit  to  ^he, church  and  to 
put  on  women's  dress,  leaving  other  matWrs  to  be  settled 
afterwards.  "  You  take  great  pains  to  persuade  me,"  she 
said  to  the  priests,  —  with  a  smile  on  her  lips,  as  the  by- 
standers thought.  Then  she  put  her  mark  on  something.1 

1  P.  i.  446  et  seq. ;  ii.  17,  331,  Massieu  ;  338,  Desert ;  Hi.  52,  De  la 
Chambre  ;  54,  Bp.  of  Noyon  ;  61,  Courcelles  ;  64,  Monnet ;  90,  Mar- 
cel ;  122,  Macy ;  132,  Miget ;  146,  Manchon ;  156,  Massieu ;  194, 
Moreau  ;  197,  Taquel.  In  this  mass  of  evidence  there  are  some  dis- 
crepancies, but  not  more  important  than  is  natural  under  the  circum- 
stances. 

In  his  Aperfus  nouveaux,  p.  133  et  seq.,  M.  Quicherat  maintains 
that  Cauchon  was  incapable  of  forging  Joan's  abjuration,  or  of  sub- 


324  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

The  abjuration  signed,  Cauclion  pronounced  the  sen- 
tence, which  he  had  made  ready  in  the  hope  of  her  sub- 
mission.1 It  was  in  Latin,  and  Joan  could  not  have  un- 
derstood it,  even  if  the  noise  about  her  and  her  distress  of 
mind  had  allowed  her  to  hear  it.  After  setting  forth  her 
crimes,  it  showed  that  she  had  abjured  them,  and  with  a 
contrite  heart  had  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the  church ; 
wherefore  Cauchon  released  her  from  excommunication. 
For  salutary  penance,  he  sentenced  her  to  perpetual  im- 

stituting  another  document  for  the  one  actually  signed.  Herein  it 
seems  to  me  that  M.  Quicherat  is  carried  too  far  by  his  proper  reac- 
tion against  the  exaggerated  charges  of  irregularity  made  against  the 
bishop  by  most  authors.  Cauchon  did  not  stick  at  irregularities  when 
they  were  necessary,  as  witness  the  depositions  concerning  Joan's  last 
morning,  which  Manchon  refused  to  attest,  and  which  Cauchon  yet 
introduced  into  the  papers  of  the  trial.  M.  Quicherat  disregards  the 
testimony  given  at  the  second  trial  concerning  the  abjuration,  alleg- 
ing that  it  was  biased  in  favor  of  Joan.  Doubtless  this  is  true,  but 
its  amount  is  too  considerable  and  its  agreement  too  marked  to  be 
treated  lightly,  especially  as  some  of  it  comes  from  witnesses  who  did 
not  hesitate  to  speak  their  minds.  M.  Quicherat  treats  the  testimony 
of  Joan  herself  as  of  controlling  force,  and  therein  he  seems  to  me 
quite  right.  He  says  that  she  did  not  deny  having  abjured  her  voices, 
but  asserted  merely  that  she  did  not  so  understand  the  document 
she  signed  ;  which,  I  confess,  seems  to  me  a  civil  way  of  saying  the 
same  thing.  M.  Quicherat  adds  that  she  reproached  herself  with 
having  been  guilty  of  sin  in  order  to  save  her  life.  This  is  true  ;  but 
because  she  admitted  weakness  in  changing  her  dress  and  in  her  gen- 
eral promise  of  submission,  it  does  not  follow  that  she  admitted  all 
other  possible  weaknesses  in  addition.  The  sin  of  denying  her  voices 
she  seems  to  me  to  have  asserted  that  she  did  not  commit.  I  think 
it  reasonably  clear,  therefore,  that  there  was  either  forgery,  substitu- 
tion, or  total  and  probably  intentional  misunderstanding.  Boisguil- 
laume  said  that  the  abjuration  was  read  to  Joan,  but  that  she  did  not 
understand  it.  Moreau  could  not  remember  anything  about  it,  except 
a  mention  of  treason,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  existing  abjura- 
tion. Taquel  testified  that  Massieu  read  an  abjuration  of  six  lines  or 
thereabouts.  Certainly  these  statements  furnish  no  particular  evi- 
dence that  Joan  intelligently  signed  an  abjuration  containing  con- 
siderably over  three  hundred  words.  See  P.  iii.  156,  164,  194,  197. 
1  P.  i.  461 ;  iii.  146. 


THE   CONVICTION   AND   THE   RECANTATION.          325 

prisonuient  on  the  bread  of  adversity  and  the  water  of 
affliction,  in  order  that  she  might  repent  her  sins,  and 
commit  no  more  deeds  to  be  repented  of.1  As  she  was 
led  away  to  her  perpetual  prison,  there  was  question  what 
that  prison  should  be.  Joan  seems  to  have  asked,  as  was 
reasonable,  that,  having  been  condemned  by  the  church, 
she  should  be  kept  in  the  church's  prison.  Many,  perhaps 
most,  of  the  assessors  would  have  liked  to  grant  her 
request,  but  their  opinion  was  not  asked.2  "  Lead  her  to 
the  place  from  which  you  took  her,"  said  the  bishop ;  and 
they  led  her  back  to  her  old  cell,3  letting  her  hope,  it 
may  be,  that  she  was  soon  to  be  removed.  There,  in  the 
same  afternoon,  she  was  visited  by  the  vice-inquisitor, 
and,  after  hearing  a  little  homily  on  the  duty  of  persisting 
in  her  submission,  she  put  on  women's  clothes  and  allowed 
her  hair  to  be  cut  and  arranged  so  that  she  no  longer 
wore  it  man-fashion.4 

Some  of  the  English  were  so  angry  with  Cauchon  for 
favoring  Joan  that  he  appealed  to  the  cardinal  for  pro- 
tection.5 He  was  entitled  to  it.  He  had  spared  Joan's 
life  for  the  moment,  indeed,  but  she  herself  had  destroyed 
her  own  reputation,  as  no  power  of  his  could  have  de- 
stroyed it.  To  take  her  life  at  any  time  was  a  matter 
comparatively  easy.  When  Warwick  complained  to  the 
bishop  and  those  with  him,  saying  tnat  the  king  would  be 
displeased  at  Joan's  escape,  one  of  them  answered,  "  Do 
not  vex  yourself,  my  lord;  we  shall  soon  have  her  again."  6 

1  P.  i.  450. 

2  P.  iii.  59,  Courcelles. 

3  P.  ii.  14,  Manchon  ;  ii.  18,  iii.  157,  Massieu  ;  iii.  175,  Leffivre. 

4  P.  i.  452. 

6  P.  ii.  355,  iii.  184,  Marguerie  ;  iii.  55,  Bp.  of  Noyon. 
6  P.  ii.  376,  Fave. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE   RELAPSE   AND   THE    EXECUTION. 

To  understand  that  which  took  place  in  the  last  week 
May  24-  of  Joan's  life,  it  is  necessary  to  know  what  was 
27, 1431.  fae  feeijng.  of  tne  English,  of  Cauchon,  and  of 
Joan  herself,  after  she  had  signed  her  abjuration  and  had 
put  on  woman's  dress. 

All  Englishmen  in  Rouen  except  Warwick  and  a  few 
other  leaders  were  furious.  They  were  sure  that  they 
had  been  betrayed.  Their  greatest  enemy,  who  had  cost 
them  so  dear,  in  men,  in  territory,  and  in  money  paid  to 
buy  her,  had  cheated  their  revenge.  She  had  been  con- 
demned to  perpetual  imprisonment,  indeed,  but  they  had 
wished  and  expected  her  death.  This  she  had  escaped, 
miserable  witch  though  she  was,  by  some  legal  technical- 
ity, or,  as  seemed  more  likely,  by  the  connivance  of  her 
treacherous  countrymen,  whom  the  English  had  been 
foolish  enough  to  make  her  judges.  The  hatred  which 
Englishmen  had  naturally  felt  for  Joan  before  her  cap- 
ture was  little  affected  by  her  testimony  or  by  her  bear- 
ing at  her  trial.  Most  of  them  had  hardly  seen  her ; 
few  of  them  could  fully  understand  what  she  said.  The 
angry,  savage  soldiers  were  ready  to  vent  their  wrath  on 
any  Frenchman,  especially  if  he  were  a  Frenchman  con- 
nected with  Cauchon's  tribunal.1 

To  Cauchon,  doubtless,  this  turbulence  of  the  English 
seemed  unreasonable,2  for  he  knew  that  his  craft  was 

1  See  P.  ii.  357,  Grouchet ;  376,  Fave. 

2  P.  ii.  322,  Bouchier  ;  338,  Desert ;  355,  Marguerie  ;  ii.  301,  iii. 
130,  Miget ;  iii.  55,  Bp.  of  Noyon  ;  90,  Marcel ;  147,  Maiichon. 


THE  EELAPSE  AND  THE  EXECUTION.       327 

serving  their  cause  more  effectually  than  their  own  blind 
rage.  His  plan  had  been  formed  for  weeks,  perhaps  for 
months,  and  so  far  he  had  succeeded  in  carrying  it  out. 
He  might  easily  have  killed  Joan,  either  after  a  hasty  trial 
or  by  poison  or  ill  usage  in  prison  ;  and  thus  have  made 
her  a  martyr.  Instead  of  doing  so,  he  had  made  her 
discredit  herself  by  recanting  her  errors  and  changing 
her  dress.  Having  destroyed  her  marvelous  reputation, 
wherein  lay  her  real  strength,  he  prepared  to  complete 
his  work  by  putting  to  death  with  all  due  formality  the 
poor  self-convicted  witch,  half  impostor,  half  deluded  by 
the  Devil,  who  would  soon  revoke  her  recantation  and  so 
destroy  her  last  chance  of  life. 

After  the  churchmen  had  left  her  on  Thursday  after- 
noon, Joan  sat  in  her  cell,  with  the  cut  of  her  hair  changed 
and  in  woman's  dress,  but  chained  and  guarded  as  usual,1 
kept  just  as  she  had  been  kept  since  she  reached  Rouen. 
In  that  cell,  in  those  chains,  and  with  like  soldiers  for 
her  keepers,  she  was  condemned  to  pass  the  rest  of  her 
life.  By  her  abjuration  she  had  gained  nothing.  She 
had  signed  the  paper  and  had  changed  her  dress  in  order 
to  escape  from  the  custody  of  brutal  soldiers  into  that 
of  decent  priests,  and  in  order  to  receive  the  sacrament. 
The  sacrament  had  not  been  given  her,  the  priests  ap- 
parently had  left  her  forever,  and  by  her  change  of  dress 
she  had  exposed  herself  more  than  before  to  the  lust  of 
her  keepers. 


Her  voices  spoke  to  her.     For  six  years 
her  constant  comfort.     Without  them,  as 


they  had  been 
she  said,  she 


would  have  died  in  prison,  and,  except  for  the  folly  of  a 
moment  at  Beaurevoir,  a  fault  easily  forgiven,  she  had 
always  obeyed  them.  That  morning,  even  if  she  had  not 
actually  denied  them,  yet  she  had  openly  shown  her  dis- 
trust of  them,  and  at  the  last  moment  had  failed  to  an- 
swer her  judges  boldly  for  fear  of  death. 
1  P.  ii.  18,  Massieu. 


328  JOAN   OF  AKC. 

To  escape  the  terrible  reproach  of  her  voices,  and  in 
the  hope  of  regaining  the  peace  of  mind  she  had  lost,  she 
confessed  her  shame  and  cowardice  to  her  keepers,1  prob- 
ably because  her  remorse  would  not  let  her  be  quiet,  and 
they  were  the  only  persons  to  whom  she  could  speak. 
They  paid  little  attention  to  her  words ;  the  plan  formed 
to  entrap  her  was  intended  to  secure  more  material  proof 
of  her  relapse.  What  she  endured  on  Friday  and  Satur- 
day cannot  be  precisely  known,  —  how  carefully  her  guards 
and  others  in  the  plot  stopped  at  threats,  and  how  far 
they  went  in  actual  violence  and  outrage.  The  natural 
exasperation  of  the  English  soldiers  needed  no  urging ;  in 
woman's  dress  she  was  treated  far  worse  than  when  she 
was  dressed  as  a  man.2  Doubtless  her  sufferings  seemed 
to  her  the  just  punishment  of  her  cowardice. 

In  her  agony  she  may  have  cried  out  for  the  clothes 
she  used  to  wear;  at  any  rate,  they  were  deliberately 
placed  where  she  could  reach  them.  According  to  one 
story,  the  guards  took  away  the  new  dress  while  she  was 
asleep,  and  refused  to  give  it  back  ; 3  but  such  an  act  would 
have  provided  her  with  legal  justification  for  the  change, 
and  therefore  would  hardly  have  been  allowed.  Within 

1  P.  i.  462. 

2  Ladvenu  is  reported  to  have  testified  that  Joan  told  him  that 
an  English  nobleman  had  violated  her.     P.  ii.  8.     Later  he  testified 
that  she  told   him  the   Englishman  had  attempted  it.     P.  ii.  365  ; 
iii.  168.     The  second  story  corresponds  better  with  the  testimony  of 
other  witnesses.     See  P.  ii.  5,  305,  La  Pierre  ;  300,  Manchon  ;  306, 
Cusquel  ;  P.  iii.  149,  Manchon  ;  201,  Daron. 

8  This  is  the  account  given  by  the  sergeant  Massien.  P.  ii.  18, 
333  ;  iii.  157.  The  reasons  given  in  the  text  seem  to  me  conclusive, 
inasmuch  as  there  is  no  reason  why  Joan  herself  should  not  have 
told  the  story  to  the  judges  if  it  had  been  true.  Of  course,  the 
man's  dress  was  put  within  her  reach.  See  P.  ii.  305,  La  Pierre  ; 
iii.  55,  Bp.  of  Noyon  ;  113,  Lenozole.  The  official  report  makes 
Joan  say  that  she  had  put  on  the  dress  without  compulsion,  and 
Manchon  would  hardly  have  attested  a  falsehood  on  this  point.  P. 
i.  455. 


THE  RELAPSE  AND   THE   EXECUTION.  329 

two  days  she  had  put  on  again  her  old  tunic  and  cloak 
and  leggings.1 

News  of  what  she  had  done  was  brought  to  Cauchon. 
Thus  far  his  plan  had  succeeded  perfectly,  and  without 
undue  haste  he  pursued  it  to  the  end.  On  the  afternoon 
of  Trinity  Sunday  he  directed  Beaupere,  a  delegate  of 
the  University  of  Paris  and  one  of  Joan's  examiners,  to 
visit  her  in  her  cell.  He  was  commanded  to  admonish 
Joan  to  persist  in  her  submission,  and  doubtless  he  was 
to  certify  her  relapse,  if  he  should  find  that  she  had  re- 
turned to  her  former  evil  ways.2 

The  prison  was  locked  and  the  jailer  could  not  be  found. 
As  Beaupere  waited  in  the  court-yard  of  the  castle  with 
the  assessors  who  accompanied  him,  the  English  soldiers 
gathered  about  them,  calling  them  false  traitor  Arma- 
gnacs.  The  churchmen  were  timid.  Beaupere  could  not 
understand  English,  and  asked  Midi,  one  of  his  colleagues, 
what  the  soldiers  wanted.  Midi  reported  that  the  men 
said  it  would  be  a  good  job  to  throw  them  both  into  the 
river.  At  this  all  took  fright  and  rushed  out  across  the 
drawbridge  into  the  town,  followed  by  the  soldiers  shout- 
ing *and  brandishing  their  swords.  Cauchon  had  not 
been  able  to  take  the  whole  English  garrison  into  his 
secret.3 

On  the  next  day,  Monday,  May  28,  four  days  after 
the  recantation,  Cauchon  himself,  with  the  vice-  May  28, 
inquisitor,  several  assessors,  and  the  notaries,  went   1431- 
to  Joan's  cell  in  order  to  establish  formally  the  fact  of  her 
relapse.     This  time  the  English  soldiers  were  kept  under 
control,   and   the   journey  was    made   in    safety.4     They 
found  Joan  in  her  old  dress,  her  face  stained  with  tears 
and  so  marked  and  disfigured  that  one  assessor  took  pity 
on  her.5     The  kindly  Dominican  knew  nothing  of  her  re- 

1  See  P.  i.  454,  462.  2  P.  ii.  21,  Beaupere. 

3  P.  ii.  14,  Manchon  ;  21,  Beaupere.  4  P.  ii.  14,  Manchon. 

6  P.  ii.  5,  La  Pierre. 


330  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

morse  and  the  reproach  of  her  voices,  and  he  laid  all  her 
distress  to  the  outrages  of  her  keepers. 

Cauchon  proceeded  at  once  to  business,  and  asked  when 
and  why  she  had  put  on  again  the  dress  of  a  man.  For 
a  little  while,  according  to  the  official  report,  Joan  tried 
to  evade  an  answer,  saying  that  she  had  acted  of  her  own 
free  will,  that  she  preferred  man's  dress,  that  she  did  not 
think  she  had  sworn  never  to  wear  it  again.  Apparently 
she  was  shamefaced,  as  she  had  been  before,  but  at  last 
she  was  forced  to  answer  plainly.  While  living  among 
men,  she  said,  it  was  more  fitting  and  decent  for  her  to 
wear  a  man's  dress  than  a  woman's,  and  she  added  that 
they  had  not  kept  their  promises  to  her,  namely,  that  she 
should  receive  the  sacrament  and  have  heir  irons  knocked 
off.  Being  further  questioned,  she  answered  that  she 
would  rather  die  than  be  kept  in  chams,  and  that,  if  they 
would  commit  her  to  a  proper  prison,  she  would  dress  as 
they  pleased.1 

From  her  dress  Cauchon  passed  to  her  voices.  He  had 
heard,  so  he  told  her,  that  she  now  held  to  the  deceitful 
and  pretended  visions  which  she  had  just  abjured,  and 
he  asked  her  if,  since  last  Thursday,  she  had  heard  her 
voices.  She  answered  yes. 

What  had  they  said  to  her,  pursued  Cauchon.  God 
had  bidden  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Margaret  tell  her,  Joan 
answered,  what  a  great  shame  was  the  treason  2  to  which 
she  had  consented  in  forswearing  and  recanting  to  save 
her  life.  Her  voices  warned  her  that  she  was  damning 
herself  to  save  her  life.  \  Up  /to  last  Thursday  they  had 
told  her  what  to  do,  and  ste  h£d  done  it.  Even  when  she 
was  on  the  scaffold  in  face  of  the  people,  they  had  told 
her  to  answer  Erard  boldly.  "  He  was  a  lying  preacher," 
she  continued,  "  and  charge^  me  with  many  things  which 
I  had  not  done.  If  I  should  say  that  God  did  not  send 
me,  I  should  damn  myself,  for  it  is  true  that  God  did 
1  P.  i.  455.  2  "  La  g|ande  pitid  de  la  trayson." 


THE   RELAPSE   AND   THE   EXECUTION.  331 

send  me.  Since  last  Thursday  my  voices  have  been  tell- 
ing me  that  I  did  great  wrong  in  confessing  that  what  I 
had  done  was  not  well  done.  Whatever  I  said  was  said 
from  fear  of  the  fire." 1 

"  Do  you  believe  that  your  voices  are  those  of  St.  Cath- 
erine and  St.  Margaret  ?  "  asked  Cauchon.  "  Yes,"  Joan 
answered,  "theirs  and  God's."2 

Opposite  one  of  Joan's  replies,  the  scribe  wrote  on  the 
margin  of  the  page  the  words  "  fatal  answer."  Cauchon 
had  heard  enough  to  send  her  to  the  stake,  but  he  contin- 
ued his  examination,  seeing,  perhaps,  that  she  was  worn 
out,  and  hoping  that  in  her  distress  she  had  lost  some  of 
her  usual  keenness.  He  told  her  that  when  she  stood  on 
the  scaffold,  before  the  judges  and  the  people,  she  had 
confessed  that  her  story  about  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Mar- 
garet was  a  lying  boast.  Joan  replied  that  she  did  not 
understand  that  she  had  confessed  anything  of  the  sort. 
She  did  not  understand  that  she  had  denied  that  the 
voices  were  those  of  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Margaret ; 
whatever  she  had  said,  she  had  said  through  fear  of  the 
fire.  She  would  rather  do  penance  once,  by  dying,  than 
suffer  longer  in  prison ;  she  had  really  «done  nothing 
against  God  or  the  Christian  faith,  whatever  she  might 
have  said  in  her  recantation ;  and,  as  to  the  writing  she 
had  signed,  she  did  not  comprehend  it.  She  had  in- 
tended to  admit  nothing,  except  with  the  proviso  that  it 
should  so  please  God.  If  the  judges  wished,  she  would 
again  put  on  woman's  dress,  but  she  would  do  nothing 
more.  Cauchon  thereupon  withdrew ; 3  in  leaving  the  cas- 
tle, he  laughed  and  told  the  English  to  make  themselves 
quite  easy,  as  the  job  was  done.4  Though  her  fate  was 
settled,  Joan  was  left  in  suspense  for  thirty-six  hours  or 
more,  partly,  perhaps,  in  mere  neglect,  partly  that  she 
might  yield  the  more  easily  at  the  last. 

1  P.  i.  456,  457.  2  P.  i.  457. 

8  P.  i.  457  et  seq.  *  P.  ii.  5,  La  Pierre  ;  8,  Ladvenu. 


332  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

The  day  after  his  visit  to  her  cell,  on  Tuesday,  May  29, 
May  29,  Cauchon  held  the  last  sitting  of  his  court.  To 
1431<  some  forty  assessors  he  rehearsed  the  history  of 
Joan's  abjuration  and  relapse,  reading  the  minutes  of  her 
answers  made  on  the  preceding  day.  He  then  asked  the 
assessors  to  advise  him  what  he  should  do. 

There  was  but  one  thing  to  be  done,  and  the  assessors, 
with  more  or  less  reluctance,  voted  to  do  it.  Some  with 
bald  directness,  some  in  gentler  phrase,  voted  that  Joan 
was  a  relapsed  heretic,  and  should  be  delivered  to  the  lay 
tribunal  for  punishment.1  One  man  only,  Peter,  prior 
of  Longueville  Giffard,  wished  to  give  her  another  chance 
to  recant.  The  sergeant  was  ordered  to  bring  her  to  the 
place  of  execution  at  eight  o'clock  on  the  next  morning.2 

Hitherto  Cauchon's  plans  had  succeeded.  Throughout 
her  trial  Joan  had  been  obstinate,  and  her  obstinacy  had 
insured  her  conviction.  At  sight  of  the  fire  her  obstinacy 
had  given  way  and  she  had  seemed  to  confess  herself  a 
witch,  thus  admitting  what  Cauchon  had  found  it  so  hard 
to  prove.  After  she  had  been  taken  back  to  her  cell, 
her  obstinacy  had  reappeared  and  caused  her  relapse,  thus 
condemning  her  irrevocably  to  death.  But  one  thing  was 
left  for  Cauchon  to  do,  namely,  to  overcome  her  obsti- 
nacy a  second  time  and  secure  another  recantation,  which 
would  send  her  to  the  stake  confessing  the  justice  of  her 
punishment. 

To  seem  to  do  this  was  not  hard.  No  one  could  visit 
Joan's  cell  except  by  Cauchon's  permission,  and  so  he 

1  "  Relinquenda  justitise  seculari."    This  was  equivalent,  of  course, 
to  a  judgment  of  death  by  burning,  —  the  sentence  always  passed  by 
the  lay  tribunal  upon  persons  delivered  to  it  by  the  ecclesiastical  tri- 
bunal.    The  ecclesiastical  tribunal  could  not  shed  blood,  and  so  could 
not  of  itself  execute  a  capital  sentence. 

2  P.  i.  459  et  seq.    The  second  assessor  to  vote,  the  abbot  of  Fdcamp, 
while  voting  that  Joan  should  be  delivered  to  the  lay  tribunal,  voted 
also  that  the  minutes  of  her  relapse  should  be  read  to  her.     Many 
other  assessors  adopted  his  opinion,  yet  the  minutes  were  not  read. 


THE  RELAPSE  AND  THE  EXECUTION.       383 

could  tell  an  uncontradicted  story  of  what  went  on  there. 
The  assessors  who  pitied  Joan  would  wish  to  believe  that 
she  died  penitent,  and,  in  all  kindness,  would  give  to  her 
words  a  meaning  which  allowed  her  a  last  chance  of 
eternal  salvation.  In  one  'matter  Joan  herself  would  help 
the  bishop's  plan;  for  months  she  had  been  demanding 
the  Eucharist,  and,  with  death  only  a  few  hours  distant, 
she  was  sure  to  ask  it  more  earnestly  than  ever.  It  could 
be  given,  of  course,  only  to  a  contrite  penitent,  and  Joan's 
reception  of  it  would  seem  proof  of  her  contrition  for  the 
great  sin  of  which  she  was  accused.  Cauchon  knew, 
moreover,  that  the  fearful  strain  of  the  past  week  had 
weakened  Joan  more  than  months  of  imprisonment.  By 
the  sudden  announcement  that  she  was  to  be  burned  in  a 
few  hours,  he  expected  to  break  her  down  completely. 

A  week  later,  when  all  was  over,  he  assembled  the 
priests  who  saw  her  in  her  cell  on  the  last  morning  of  her 
life,  and  caused  their  statements  of  what  had  happened 
there  to  be  written  down,  in  order  to  show  that  she  had 
again  abjured  her  errors.  This  irregular  evidence  the 
official  notary  would  not  attest,  though  ordered  to  do  so 
by  Cauchon ; l  some  of  it  is  manifestly  false,  some  of  it  was 
afterwards  contradicted  by  the  witnesses  themselves.  Un- 
trustworthy as  it  is  in  important  particulars,  yet  the  true 
story  of  the  morning  may  be  gathered  from  it,  when  it 
has  been  corrected  by  other  testimony  and  by  the  proba- 
bilities of  the  case.  Allowance  must  be  made,  also,  for 
the  pressure  applied  to  the  witnesses  by  Cauchon,  and  for 
their  natural  bias. 

Soon  after  daylight  on  Wednesday  morning  there  went 
to  Joan's  cell  Peter  Maurice,  a  respectable  priest,    May  30, 
and  the  spy  Loiseleur,  in  whose  friendship  she   1431' 
still   believed.2      They   warned   her   that    her    end   was 

1  P.  ii.  14,  Manchon.     Midi  and  Courcelles  were  paid  to  June  10 
inclusive  ;  Maurice  to  June  7.     P.  v.  208. 

2  Maurice  and  Loiseleur  were  the  first  in  the  cell.    P.  i.  481,  Tout- 
mouilld  ;  484,  Loiseleur.     See  ii.  343. 


334  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

near,  and  begged  her  to  speak  the  truth,  particularly 
about  the  angel  who,  as  she  said,  had  brought  the  crown 
to  Charles.  In  the  face  of  death  Joan  would  no  longer 
play  upon  words ;  without  more  ado,  she  told  them  the 
exact  truth,  acknowledging  that  she  was  the  angel,  and 
that  the  crown  she  had  brought  was  the  promise  of  coro- 
nation fulfilled  at  Rheims.1 

Maurice  then  asked  about  the  saints  she  had  seen  and 
the  voices  she  had  heard,  hoping  that  she  would  confess 
that  they,  too,  were  only  fictions  or  allegories.  This  was 
not  true,  and  Joan  stoutly  affirmed  that  both  visions  and 
voices  were  real.  Again  and  again  Maurice  repeated  his 
question  in  varying  form.  Joan  said  that  she  often  heard 
her  voices  at  Compline,  when  the  church  bells  rang,  and 
Maurice  suggested  that  church  bells  sometimes  sound  in 
men's  ears  like  human  voices.  Joan  persisted  that  she 
had  really  heard  the  voices.  Maurice  then  told  her  that 
they  must  be  the  voices  of  evil  spirits,  intending  thus  to 
shake  her  belief,  but  she  answered  simply,  "  Be  they  good 
spirits  or  bad,  they  did  really  appear  to  "me."  From  this 
she  could  not  be  shaken.2 

While  Maurice  and  Loiseleur  were  laboring  with  her, 
two  Dominicans  joined  them,  Martin  Ladvenu  and  John 
Toutmouille.3  The  former  was  especially  commissioned 
by  Cauchon  to  tell  Joan  that,  within  two  or  three  hours, 
she  was  to  be  burnt  at  the  stake.  Ladvenu  was  a  man  of 
no  great  force,  easily  induced  to  \S£w  and  to  do  what  he 
was  told,  but  he  pitied  Joan  sincerfe^y.4  As  gently  as  he 
could  he  gave  her  his  message.  To  Joan  it  came  as  a 
shock.  She  had  spoken  of  death,  doubtless  she  had  ex- 

1  P.  i.  480,  Maurice  ;  484,  Loiseleur. 

2  P.  i.  480,  481.     As  to  the  angels,  Maurice  says  she  told  him  that 
they  appeared  as  a  multitude  of  very  small  things.    So,  also,  Ladvenu 
and  Toutmouille'.     Evidently  this  did  not  apply  to  the  voices  or  the 
saints. 

3  P.  ii.  3,  Toutmouille". 

4  He  had  been  in  Rouen  throughout  the  trial. 


THE  EELAPSE  AND  THE  EXECUTION.       335 

pected  to  die,  but  she  had  a  sanguine  temper  and  had 
not  quite  given  up  the  hope  of  deliverance.  At  first 
the  girl  could  not  contain  herself,  and  broke  down  before 
the  four  priests.  It  was  cruel,  she  told  them,  and  she  had 
rather  be  beheaded  seven  times  over  than  burnt.  Had  she 
been  guarded  by  churchmen,  and  not  by  her  enemies,  this 
would  not  have  happened,  and  she  appealed  to  God,  the 
great  judge,  against  the  wrong  that  had  been  done  her.1 
In  her  distress  Maurice  thought  that  another  appeal  might 
move  her,  and  he  pointed  out  that  her  voices  must  be  those 
of  lying  spirits,  since,  in  promising  her  deliverance,  they 
had  deceived  her.  This  horrible  thought  had  been  pres- 
ent to  her  mind  for  days ;  she  could  not  be  sure  that 
Maurice  was  wrong,  and  he  persuaded  heA*  to  say  that  she 
had  been  deceived.2  Probably  she  meant  to  admit  only 
'that  she  had  misunderstood  her  voices,  but  the  churchmen 
took  her  to  mean  that  the  voices  had  betrayed  her.  In 
her  agony  she  hardly  knew  what  she  was  saying  or  what 
she  dared  to  believe;  she  was  too  simple  and  devout  a 
Catholic  utterly  to  disregard  the  learned  priests  about 
her,  as  she  might  have  done  if  she  hkd  been  a  stubborn 
heretic.  "  Master  Peter,"  she  aske<jl  Maurice,  "  where 
shall  I  be  to-night  ?  "  "  Do  you  notl  have  good  hope  in 
God?"  said  the  well  meaning  canon^  With  returning 
confidence,  Joan  answered  that  she  had  good  hope,  and 
that,  with  God's  help,  she  would  be  in  paradise.3 

Cauchon  himself  came  to  the  prison  with  several  at- 
tending assessors.  Joan  knew  that  he,  at  any  rate,  was 
her  enemy,  and  she  spoke  to  him  boldly.  "  Bishop,  I  die 
by  your  act."  This  the  crafty  bishop  did  not  intend  to 
acknowledge.  "  Ah,  be  patient,  Joan,"  he  said.  "  You  die 
because  you  have  not  done  what  you  promised,  and  be- 

1  P.  ii.  3,  Toutmouilte. 

2  P.  i.  478,  Ladvenu. 

3  P.  iii.  191,  Riquier.     Maurice  is  reported  to  have  been  sorry  at 
Joan's  relapse.     P.  iii.  164,  Boisguillaume. 


336  JOAN   OP   ARC. 

cause  you  have  returned  to  your  old  sin."  "  If  you  had 
put  me  into  the  prisons  of  the  church,  and  had  left  me 
in  the  hands  of  proper  churchly  keepers,"  said  the  poor 
girl,  "  this  would  not  have  happened  ;  therefore  I  appeal 
against  you  to  God."  1 

Cauchon  saw  her  agony,  and,  dissatisfied  with  the  efforts 
of  Maurice,  himself  attempted  to  bring  her  to  submission. 
"  Listen,  Joan,"  he  began ;  "  you  always  told  us  that  your 
voices  promised  you  that  you  should  be  delivered;  you 
see  how  they  have  deserted  you.  Now  tell  us  the  truth." 
Again  Joan  was  forced  to  admit  that  she  had  been  de- 
ceived. Cauchon  triumphantly  declared  that  she  must 
understand  that  voices  like  hers  could  not  be  those  of 
good  spirits,  nor  could  they  come  from  God ;  if  they  had 
come  from  Him,  they  could  neither  deceive  her  nor  lie. 
To  this  Joan  made  no  answer,  and  they  could  get  nothing 
more  out  of  her,  except  rather  vague  professions  of  de- 
votion to  the  church  and  of  willingness  to  submit  to  it.2 

1  P.  ii.  3,  Toutmouille*. 

2  P.  i.  481,  Toutmouille"  ;  483,  Courcelles.     The  testimony  of  the 
seven  witnesses  examined  on  June  7  should  be  studied  carefully,  and, 
when  so  studied,  does  not  offer  very  many  serious  difficulties.    That  of 
Loiseleur  is  plainly  untruthful,  dictated  solely  by  a  desire  to  make  out 
Cauchon's  case,  and  to  show  that,  at  the  moment  of  her  death,  Joan 
gave  the  lie  to  her  whole  past  life.    His  statements  that  she  asked  him 
to  remind  her  to  confess  her  sins  to  the  people,  and  that  she  begged 
pardon  of  the  English  and  Burgundians,  are  absurd.     The  anxiety  of 
Le  Camus  to  please  Cauchon  evidently  led  him  into  considerable 
exaggeration,  if  not  into  downright  falsehood.     All  those  present, 
however,  testified  that  Joan  admitted  that  she  had  been  deceived. 
Doubtless  it  was  Cauchon's  intention  that  they  should  say  this,  but 
they  would  hardly  have  done  so  unless  Joan  had  admitted,  at  the 
least,  that  she  had  been  mistaken. 

Venderes,  Ladvenu,  Loiseleur,  Maurice,  and  Courcelles  make  Joan 
say  that  she  had  been  deceived,  almost  in  the  same  words.  Tout- 
mouille'  and  Le  Carnus  make  her  say  that  the  voices  had  deceived 
her,  —  a  phrase  which  she  is  less  likely  to  have  used.  Such  a  phrase, 
however,  may  have  escaped  her  in  her  terrible  distress.  It  is  to  be 
observed  that  Toutmouille'  makes  her  say  it  in  reply  to  a  question  by 


THE  EELAPSE  AND  THE  EXECUTION.       337 

Cauchon  went  away  with  most  of  his  assessors  to  prepare 
for  the  execution.  Ladvenu  stayed  behind,  having  been 
directed  to  give  Joan  all  needful  ghostly  advice. 

She  had  now  no  hope  of  escape,  and  she  gave  herself  at 

Cauchon.  Courcelles,  the  witness  who  stood  least  in  awe  of  Cauchon, 
testifying  after  Toutmouille',  and  probably  after  having  heard  him, 
seems  to  correct  his  testimony  by  saying  that,  according  to  his  own 
recollection,  Joan  said,  "  I  see  that  I  have  been  deceived."  Le  Camus 
testified  that,  at  the  time  Ladvenu  was  administering  the  Eucharist, 
Joan  confessed  that  her  voices  had  deceived  her,  and  that  she  would 
put  faith  in  them  no  longer.  Ladvenu,  without  mentioning  the  occa- 
sion, makes  her  say  something  to  the  same  effect,  but  less  specific. 
At  the  rehabilitation,  however,  he  testified  that  Joan  always  main- 
tained that  her  voices  came  from  God.  So,  also,  Mauchon,  P.  iii. 
150.  It  is  pretty  clear  that  both  Le  Camus  and  Ladvenu  stretched 
their  recollections  severely.  Perhaps  Ladvenu  told  Joan  that  her 
voices  were  not  worthy  of  belief,  and  she  did  not  contradict  him.  See 
P.  i.  483,  Le  Camus. 

Le  Camus  makes  Joan  admit  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop  that  her 
voices  were  evil.  Courcelles  says  that  Cauchon  told  her  that  they 
were  evil,  but  gives  no  reply.  Ladvenu,  Maurice,  and  Toutmouille' 
make  her  leave  the  matter  more  or  less  vaguely  to  the  church  or  to 
the  churchmen,  while  Maurice  quotes  her  words, "  Be  they  good  spirits 
or  bad,  they  did  appear  to  me." 

According  to  Ladvenu,  Maurice,  and  Toutmouille',  she  said  some- 
thing about  the  vision  being  in  the  similitude  of  a  great  number  of 
very  small  things.  As  they  did  not  understand  her  meaning,  appar- 
ently, it  is  difficult  for  us  to  do  so. 

Joan  doubtless  said  something  which  could  be  taken  as  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  authority  of  the  church,  for  Ladvenu  so  testified,  even  at 
the  rehabilitation.  See  P.  ii.  365  ;  iii.  167.  Her  language  about  this 
matter  was  probably  pretty  vague,  like  that  she  so  often  used  at  her 
trial.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  questions  asked  of  the  witnesses  at 
the  second  trial  were  intended  to  elicit  an  answer  that  Joan  had  sub- 
mitted to  the  church.  See  ii.  293,  articles  ix.,  xi. ;  ii.  311,  articles 
xiv.,  xvii.,  xxiii. 

Taking  all  the  testimony  together,  two  things  appear  plainly  : 
Joan's  great  distress,  and  the  desire  of  the  witnesses  to  tell  a  story 
agreeable  to  Cauchon.  It  should  be  observed  that  Courcelles,  the 
most  reserved  of  the  witnesses  of  June  7  in  testifying  against  Joan, 
was  at  the  rehabilitation  almost  the  most  reserved  in  testifying  in 
her  favor.  This  makes  his  testimony  doubly  valuable.  I  see  no 


338  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

once  to  devout  preparation  for  death,  confessing  her  sins 
to  Ladvenu,  and  meekly  receiving  from  him  the  sacrament 
of  penance.1  She  begged  earnestly  for  the  Eucharist,  and 
Ladvenu  sent  the  sergeant  Massieu  to  Cauchon,  asking  for 
instructions.  Cauchon  gave  his  permission  readily;  for 
the  reasons  already  mentioned,  he  had  always  intended  to 
do  so.2  The  host  was  brought  in  state  with  litany  and 
candles  through  the  castle  yard,  so  that  all  by-standers 
might  know  how  Joan  had  again  recanted  her  errors 
and  acknowledged  her  sins.3  By  the  time  the  cell  was 
reached,  however,  all  need  of  pomp  had  ceased,  for  want 
of  spectators,  and  the  host  was  delivered  to  Ladvenu  in  a 
manner  so  slovenly,  without  candle,  surplice,  or  stole,  that 
the  outraged  priest  would  not  administer  the  sacrament 
until  decent  furnishing  was  provided.4  Joan  had  already 
put  on  woman's  dress  ;  months  before,  she  had  asked  her 
judges  that  it  might  be  given  her  when  she  came  to  be 
executed.5  In  it  she  received  the  Eucharist  for  the  first 
time  at  Rouen. 

She  had  been  cited  to  appear  before  the  court  at  eight 
o'clock,  and  she  was  arrayed  for  the  procession  through 
the  streets.  They  put  upon  her  a  long  black  robe,  such 
as  those  condemned  by  the  Inquisition  used  to  wear,  and 
on  her  head  a  mitre  with  these  words  written,  "  Heretic, 
relapsed,  apostate,  idolater."  6  Guarded  by  several  score 
of  English  soldiers,  accompanied  by  the  sergeant  and  by 
Ladvenu,  she  was  led  from  the  castle  to  the  Old  Market,  a 

reason  to  suppose  that  the  testimony  taken  June  7  was  altered  in  the 
recording.  Manchon's  objection  to  attesting  it  was  its  irregularity, 
not  its  incorrectness. 

1  P.  i.  482,  Le  Camus  ;  ii.  308,  Ladvenu. 

2  P.  iii.  158,  Massieu.     See  iii.  149. 

3  P.  iii.  114,  Lenozoles. 

4  P.  ii.  19,  334,  Massieu. 

6  P.  i.  176.     See  P.  iii.  159 ;  ii.  334. 

c  P.  iv.  459,  Fauquemberque.     See  iv.  480,  note  3. 


THE   RELAPSE   AND   THE   EXECUTION.  389 

few  hundred  yards  distant,  in  the  heart  of  Rouen.1  There 
had  been  erected  three  platforms  or  scaffolds,  one  for  the 
court,  one  for  the  distinguished  spectators,  and  one  on 
which  was  set  up  the  stake.2  The  market-place  was  filled 
with  a  great  crowd,  English  soldiers,  townspeople,  and 
peasants  who  had  flocked  in  from  the  country  to  see  the 
show.  Apparently  the  execution  had  been  advertised  at 
least  a  day  beforehand.3 

About  nine  o'clock  Joan  reached  the  Old  Market,  and 
was  brought  upon  the  platform  near  the  Church  of  St. 
Saviour.  According  to  custom,  there  was  a  sermon, 
preached  by  Nicholas  Midi,  a  member  of  the  University 
of  Paris  and  a  canon  of  Rouen.  His  text  was  from 
Corinthians,  "  If  one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suf- 
fer with  it." 4  Joan  sat  quiet  throughout  the  discourse, 
while  the  crowd  had  its  fill  of  gazing  at  the  famous 
witch.  When  Midi  had  finished,  Cauchon  for  the  last 
time  warned  Joan  to  look  well  to  the  safety  of  her  soul, 
and  advised  her  to  heed  especially  the  counsel  of  the  two 
Dominican  friars,  Ladvenu  and  Isambard  of  La  Pierre, 
appointed  to  stay  by  her  till  her  death.  He  then  read 
the  final  sentence.  This  set  forth  that  it  was  fitting  to 
separate  heretics  from  the  company  of  the  righteous,  lest 
the  deadly  poison  which  transformed  the  heretic  into  a 
limb  of  Satan  should  spread  through  the  other  members 
of  the  mystic  body  of  Christ.  Joan  had  previously  been 
found  guilty  of  the  sin  of  schism,  idolatry,  and  witchcraft, 
so  the  sentence  declared,  and,  as  now  clearly  appeared, 
she  had  never  truly  repented  of  these  sins,  but  had  re- 
turned to  her  evil  ways,  like  a  dog  to  his  vomit.  There- 

1  P.  ii.  14,  Manchon  ;  19,  Massieu  ;  iii.  173,  Houppeville  ;  Beau- 
repaire,  Memoire  sur  le  lien  du  supplice  de  J. ;  Wallon,  e"d.  illust.,  349. 

2  P.  iii.  55,  Bp.  of  Noyon. 

3  P.  iv.  354,  Basin. 

4  P.  i.  470  ;  ii.  14,  Manchon  ;  19,  Massieu  ;  Beaurepaire,  Notes  sur 
lesjuges,  38. 


340  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

fore  the  judges  declared  her  excommunicated  and  cut  off 
from  the  unity  of  the  church,  like  a  rotten  member,  aiid 
they  delivered  her  over  to  the  power  of  the  state.1 

The  sermon  and  the  rest  of  the  ceremony  had  taken 
a  considerable  time,  and  some  of  the  English  soldiers 
became  impatient.2  The  power  of  the  state,  represented 
by  the  bailiff  of  Rouen,3  should  have  passed  sentence  of 
death,  but  in  the  confusion  this  formality  was  omitted, 
or  was  passed  over  so  hastily  that  those  who  stood  close 
by  heard  nothing  of  it.4  Joan  was  brought  down  from 
the  judge's  platform,  delivered  at  once  to  the  executioner, 
and  taken  to  the  scaffold.  As  she  went,  she  begged  the 
priests  to  say  masses  for  her  soul,  and  again  she  declared 
that  for  what  she  had  done,  good  or  bad,  she  alone  would 
answer,  and  that  her  king  was  not  to  blame.  With  her 
old  confidence,  she  cried,  "  Ah,  Rouen,  I  greatly  fear  that 
you  will  have  to  suffer  for  my  death."  5 

Before  the  scaffold  a  sign  was  placed  on  which  was 
written  for  the  instruction  of  the  multitude,  "  Joan,  who 
has  taken  the  name  of  the  Maid,  liar,  wrong-doer,  de- 
ceiver of  the  people,  witch,  superstitious,  blasphemer  of 
God,  presumptuous,  unbeliever,  braggart,  idolater,  cruel, 
lewd,  sorceress,  apostate,  schismatic,  and  heretic."6  The 
scaffold  itself,  on  which  the  wood  was  piled,  had  been 
made  high,  so  that  all  the  crowd  might  see  the  burn- 

1  P.  i.  470  et  seq.     The  sentence  prepared  for  May  24  was  used, 
with  a  new  preamble.     See  i.  473. 

2  P.  ii.  20,  Massieu. 

3  Ralph  Butler.     See  Beaurepaire,  RechercJies,  22. 

4  See  P.  ii.  6,  8,  20,  324,  351,  359,  363,  375  ;  iii.  165, 169, 186, 188, 
190,  194,  202.     This  omission  was  much  insisted  upon  at  the  time 
of  the  second  trial.     If  an  error  was  made,  it  was  wholly  technical, 
of  course,  for  the  bailiff  was  willing  to  pronounce  any  sentence  re- 
quired. 

6     P.  ii.  369,  Fabre ;  iii.  53,  De  la  Chambre  ;  55,  Bp.  of  Noyon  ; 
165,  Boisguillaume  ;  202,  Daron. 
6  P.  iv.  459. 


THE   RELAPSE   AND   THE   EXECUTION.  341 

ing.1  As  Joan  was  about  to  mount  it  with  her  confes- 
sor, she  asked  for  a  cross.  An  English  soldier  gave  her 
one  made  on  the  spot  from  two  sticks  fastened  together ; 
she  kissed  it  devoutly  and,  praying  all  the  time,  thrust 
it  into  her  bosom  under  her  dress.  From  the  church  of 
St.  Saviour  opposite  they  brought  her  the  crucifix,  and 
this,  too,  she  kissed  and  embraced  while  they  bound  her 
to  the  stake. 2 

After  the  fastenings  had  been  secured,  the  executioner 
set  the  fagots  afire.  The  scaffold  was  so  high  that  he 
was  hindered  in  his  work,  and  the  wood  did  not  burn  as 
quickly  as  he  had  expected.  When  Joan  saw  the  flame, 
she  told  La  Pierre  3  to  descend  with  the  crucifix,  and  she 
begged  him,  when  he  had  done  so,  to  hold  it  up  for  her 
to  look  on  as  long  as  she  could  see.  She  had  not  lost  her 
faith  in  her  voices,  or  else  it  came  back  to  her  in  the  fire, 
for  those  standing  near  by  heard  her  speak  the  name  of 
St.  Michael,  who  had  appeared  to  her  in  her  first  vision 
in  Domremy.  At  the  last,  through  the  f)ames»  they 
heard  her  call  again  and  again  with  a  loud  voice,  "  Jesus, 
Jesus."* 

1  P.  ii.  9,  Ladvenu. 

2  P.  ii.  20,  Massieu. 

8  P.  i.  It  is  somewhat  uncertain  whether  La  Pierre  or  Ladvenu 
held  the  crucifix.  Both  were  with  her  on  the  scaffold.  See  P.  ii.  6, 
20,  303  ;  iii.  169.  I  think  it  was  the  former. 

4  P.ii.  6,  303,  352,  La  Pierre  ;  9,  Ladvenu  ;  ii.  19,  iii.  159,  Massieu  ; 
ii.  321,  Taquel ;  344,  Manchon  ;  ii.  347,  iii.  182,  Cusquel ;  ii.  377, 
Fave  ;  iii.  53,  De  la  Chambre  ;  56,  Bp.  of  Noyon  ;  90,  Marcel ;  129, 
Miget ;  177,  Fabre  ;  179,  Caval ;  186,  Le  Parmentier  ;  188,  Gues- 
don  ;  194,  Moreau  ;  202,  Daron.  For  the  name  of  St.  Michael,  see 
ii.  324,  Bouchier  ;  iii.  53,  De  la  Chambre  ;  159,  Massieu.  It  is  said 
that  Joan's  ashes  were  thrown  into  the  Seine.  P.  iii.  160. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

THE  REHABILITATION. 

THE  life  of  Joan  was  complete  at  her  death,  and  her 
M  story  loses  something  of  its  symmetry  by  in- 

June,  eluding  an  account  of  her  second  trial.  As  that 
trial,  however,  and  the  events  that  led  up  to  it 
really  help  to  explain  her  life  and  character,  their  history 
should  be  added. 

In  Normandy  the  auto-da-fe  was  never  a  popular  sport, 
as  it  was  for  centuries  in  Spain.  Some  of  those  who 
heard  Midi's  sermon  would  not  stay  in  the  market-place 
after  the  fire  was  lighted.1  Those  who  remained  were 
strangely  moved.  The  sight  of  Joan's  death  made  not 
a  few  priests  believe  her  to  be  a  martyr.  Alepee,  a 
canon  of  Rouen,  who  had  shown  her  no  special  favor, 
was  heard  to  say,  as  she  burned  before  his  eyes,  "  Would 
that  my  soul  were  in  the  same  place  as  the  soul  of  that 
woman."  2  With  the  pay  which  he  had  received  for  his 
services  at  the  trial,  the  notary  Manchon  bought  a  missal 
in  memory  of  Joan,  so  that  he  might  pray  for  her.3  A 
secretary  of  Henry  VI.,  so  it  was  said,  going  home  after 
the  execution,  declared  that  Joan  had  died  a  good  Chris- 
tian, and  that  her  soul  was  in  the  hand  of  God.  The 
chancellor,  Louis,  bishop  of  Therouanne,  John  of  Luxem- 
burg's brother,  was  reported  to  have  shed  tears ;  men 

1  P.  ii.  363,  Miget ;  iii.  56,  Bp.  of  Noyon  ;  62,  Courcelles.     See 
Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  70.     Some,  probably  most,  of  the  heretics 
mentioned  by  him  were  not  burnt. 

2  P.  iii.  191,  Riquier.     See,  also,  iii.  169,  Ladvenu. 

3  P.  ii.  15  ;  iii.  150,  Manchon. 


THE   REHABILITATION.  343 

said  that  even  Cauchon  had  wept.1  That  very  afternoon, 
about  four  o'clock,  the  executioner  went  to  the  Domin- 
ican monastery  and  sought  out  Ladvenu  and  La  Pierre, 
fearing-  God's  wrath  for  what  he  had  done.  In  his  dis- 
tress he  bewailed  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  do  his 
work  properly,  and  that  Joan  had  suffered  a  crueller 
death  than  others  whom  he  had  burned ;  and  he  told  the 
already  excited  monks  that  he  had  not  been  able  to  con- 
sume her  heart,  though  he  had  freely  used  both  sulphur 
and  charcoal.2  Other  stories  about  the  execution,  some 
true,  some  exaggerated,  some  quite  legendary,  began  to  fill 
men's  minds  with  wonder  and  awe.  An  English  soldier, 
so  one  of  these  stories  ran,  had  conceived  such  hatred 
of  Joan  that  he  swore  with  his  own  hands  to  throw  a 
fagot  into  the  fire.  He  did  so,  and  at  the  moment  of  her 
death  heard  her  call  on  Jesus  and  saw  a  white  dove  in 
the  midst  of  the  flames ;  thereupon  he  had  staggered 
into  a  tavern  proclaiming  that  Joan  was  a  holy  woman.3 
The  impression  thus  made  by  Joan's  death  was  lasting. 
It  was  currently  reported  in  Rouen  that  all  who  had  been 
guilty  of  it  died  wretchedly,  —  Midi,  a  leper ;  Estivet,  in 
a  brothel.  The  fact  that  this  report  was  not  altogether 
true  does  not  make  it  less  noteworthy.  Throughout  the 
loyal  provinces,  also,  Joan's  name  was  a  household  word, 
kept  constantly  in  remembrance  by  the  tales  of  those  who 
had  served  with  her  in  arms,  and  by  the  yearly  celebra- 
tion of  the  deliverance  of  Orleans. 

Meantime,  though  the  war  dragged  on,  the  situation  of 
France  and  England  was  changed.     Two  years 

1433 

after  Joan's  death,  in  June,  1433,  as  La   Tre- 

moille  slept  at  Chinon,  some  partisans  of  the  constable 

1  P.  ii.  307,  320,  347,  352  ;  iii.  129,  177,  182. 

2  P.  ii.  7,  352,  La  Pierre  ;  9,  Ladvenu.     His  name  seems  to  have 
been  Geoffrey  Therage.     See  Beaurepaire,  Recherches,  38. 

8  P.  ii.  352,  La  Pierre.    It  may  occur  to  the  reader  that  the  soldier 
was  possibly  drunk.     This  may  have  been  the  case,  or  the  whole 


344  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

Richemont  and  of  the  king's  young  brother-in-law,  Charles 
of  Maine,  entered  the  castle  by  stealth,  burst  into  the  fa- 
vorite's chamber  and  dragged  him  from  his  bed,  wounding 
him  severely  in  the  struggle.  When  the  king  first  heard 
the  noise  he  was  considerably  frightened,  but  the  queen 
speedily  coaxed  him  into  good  humor.  If  the  grim  con- 
stable himself  had  been  there,  probably  he  would  have 
served  La  Tremoille  as  he  had  served  his  predecessors 
Le  Camus  and  Giac.1  Unfortunately,  milder  counsels  pre- 
vailed. La  Tremoille  was  put  to  ransom,  and  lived  for 
some  years  to  plot  against  the  government,  though  he 
never  regained  the  king's  favor.  He  died  in  1446. 2 

The  party  which  succeeded  to  the  control  of  the  king 
1435_  sincerely  wished  for  peace  with  Burgundy  and 
1444>  was  ready  to  give  almost  anything  to  secure  it. 
Philip  was  not  unwilling.  He  had  become  tired  of  the 
English  alliance,  and  his  sister,  Bedford's  wife,  who  had 
labored  hard  to  unite  the  two  dukes,  was  now  dead.3  At 
Arras,  in  1435,  the  treaty  was  settled,  —  in  some  of  its 
conditions  a  hard  one  for  Charles,  but  effectually  secur- 
ing to  him  the  French  crown.4  By  renouncing  the  crown 
at  once,  Henry  VI.  might  have  kept  several  French  prov- 
inces, but  Bedford  died  just  a  week  before  the  treaty 
of  Arras  was  signed,  and  in  him  the  boy  king  lost  his 
only  able  and  faithful  adviser.5  After  Bedford's  death 
the  English  government  fell  into  a  disorder  like  that  of 
Charles  VII. 's  administration  in  the  first  years  of  his  reign. 
As  the  French  soldiers  learned  discipline,  as  French  finan- 
cial management  improved,  and  French  administration 

story  may  have  been  apocryphal.  Its  importance  comes  altogether 
from  the  credit  it  gained. 

1  See  p.  11,  ante. 

2  Beaucourt,  ii.  297  ;  Cagny,  96,  v. ;  Godefroy,  Hist.  Charles  VII., 
386  ;  Les  la  Tremoille,  xxii. 

3  Beaucourt,  ii.  455. 

4  Beaucourt,  ii.  505  et  seq.  ;  Vallet  de  V.,  ii.  315. 

5  Beaucourt,  ii.  53  ;  Stevenson,  Letters  of  Henry  VI.,  Ixx. 


THE   REHABILITATION.  345 

became  more  honest  and  efficient,  the  English  soldiers 
turned  brigands,  English  taxation  became  more  oppressive, 
and  English  administration  inefficient  and  corrupt.  In 
1435  St.  Denis  was  taken,  in  1436  Paris  went  over  to 
Charles,1  and  only  the  turbulence  of  the  French  nobility  2 
and  the  real  affection  for  English  rule  felt  by  the  men 
of  Bordeaux  put  off  Charles's  final  triumph  for  twenty 
years.  In  1444  the  English  were  forced  to  sign  a  truce  ; 
this  enabled  the  husbandmen  to  cultivate  what  once  had 
been  fertile  fields,  but  which  in  many  parts  of  France 
were  become  literally  a  tangled  wilderness.3 

During  the  first  years  that  followed  Joan's  death,  it 
is  not  easy  to  trace  precisely  the  fortunes  of  her  family. 
Her  father  soon  died.  At  some  time  her  brother  John 
was  made  provost  of  Vaucouleurs.  Her  brother  Peter, 
who  had  been  taken  prisoner  with  her  at  Compiegne, 
found  it  hard  to  raise  the  money  needed  for  his  ransom. 
He  was  released  on  parole,  however,  and  married  a  girl 
from  Domremy,  whose  dowry  was  spent  in  getting  her 
husband's  release.  James,  or  Jacquemin,  who  had  not  fol- 
lowed his  sister  to  the  war,  continued  to  live  in  Domremy, 
and  there  for  some  years  lived  Joan's  mother,  Isabel.4 

In  May,  1436,  five  years  after  Joan's  execution,  there 
appeared    in  the   neighborhood  of   Metz,  about 
fifty  miles  from  Domremy,  a  young  woman  who 
gave  herself  out  to  be  Joan.     Her  story  stirred  the  curi- 
osity of  the  people  of  Metz ;  many  went  out  to  see  her 
and  gave  her  presents,  including  a  horse  which  she  man- 
aged cleverly.     Joan's   brothers,  John  and  Peter,   soon 
arrived,   and  publicly  recognized  the  impostor  as  their 
sister.     It  is  not  easy  to  explain  their  conduct.     The  age 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  53  ;  iii.  7. 

2  As  shown  by  the  affair  of  the  Praguerie,  for  example. 

3  Beaucourt,  iii.  266  et  seq.  ;  Basin,  i.  161. 

4  P.  ii.  74,  n.  ;  v.  212  ;  B.  de  Molandon,  Fam.  de  J.,  2'  tableau,  and 
p.  12. 


346  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

was  credulous,  and  the  brothers  were  not  remarkably 
intelligent;  when  the  story  of  their  sister's  return  was 
first  told  them,  they  may  not  have  realized  its  absurdity, 
but  may  honestly  have  expected  to  find  her.  At  the  first 
sight,  their  recognition  may  have  been  honest,  but  they 
could  not  have  been  long  deceived.  Perhaps  they  were 
ashamed  to  confess  their  blunder,  and  it  seems  probable 
that  they  expected  to  gain  by  it.  To  Joan  of  Arc  alive, 
the  king  and  the  city  of  Orleans  owed  an  immense  debt  of 
gratitude,  in  the  payment  of  which  her  brothers  might 
well  hope  to  share. 

Whatever  was  the  motive  of  their  conduct,  they  stayed 
with  the  woman  in  the  neighborhood  of  Metz  for  some 
time.  She  did  not  want  cleverness ;  she  evaded  incon- 
venient questions  by  oracular  speech,  and,  though  she 
promised  to  accomplish  great  things,  she  announced  that 
power  was  not  to  be  given  her  until  midsummer.  She 
sent  letters  to  Charles  VII.  and  to  Orleans,  and  finally  dis- 
patched John  to  the  king,  probably  in  quest  of  money. 
Charles  would  promise  money  only  for  John's  journey, 
and  did  not  pay  even  that;  whereupon  the  young  man 
appealed  to  the  city  of  Orleans,  and  was  given  twelve 
pounds.  The  pursuivants  of  the  city  made  several  jour- 
neys to  Metz,  carrying  letters  back  and  forth,  but  Orleans 
continued  to  celebrate  a  requiem  mass  on  the  anniver- 
sary of  Joan's  death.1 

The  adventuress,  whose  real  name  seems  to  have  been 
Claude,  was  restless.  Before  John's  return  from  Orleans 
she  entered  the  duchy  of  Luxemburg,  and  was  well  re- 
ceived by  the  duchess.  Cutting  loose  from  her  pretended 
relatives  or  deserted  by  them,  she  captivated  Ulrich,  count 
of  Wiirtemberg,  and  went  with  him  to  Cologne,  probably 
as  his  mistress.  Her  wild  blood  made  her  fancy  to  play 
at  soldiering;  Ulrich  gave  her  a  fine  suit  of  armor,  and 
she  announced  that  she  would  enthrone  one  of  the  rival 
1  See  P.  v.  326,  274  ;  Lecoy,  Le  roi  Rene,  i.  314. 


THE   REHABILITATION.  347 

claimants  of  the  archbishopric  of  Treves.  She  danced 
and  drank  with  the  men  at  arms,  and  declared  that  she 
had  the  miraculous  power  of  making  whole,  in  a  moment, 
torn  clothes  and  broken  bottles.  Her  antics  aroused  the 
Inquisition,  but  by  the  help  of  Count  Ulrich  she  got  away 
from  Cologne,  though  she  did  not  escape  excommunica- 
tion. Before  long  she  was  again  in  Luxemburg,  where 
the  count  seems  to  have  left  her,  and  where,  before  the 
end  of  1436,  she  married  a  knight,  Kobert  of  Armoises. 
With  him  she  went  to  live  in  his  town  house  at  Metz.1 

Claude  could  not  long  abide  in  a  life  of  sober  respecta- 
bility.    Two  or  three  years  after  her   marriage   143$- 
she  left  her  husband  and  wandered  to  Orleans,   ]  t40- 
where   she  was   received  with   hesitating   respect.     The 
city  did  not  disavow  her ;   on  the  contrary,  the  council 
sent  her  presents  of  meat  and  wine,  and  even  gave  her 
two  hundred  and  ten  pounds  "  for  the  good  she  had  done 
the  town  during  the  siege."     It  is  tolerably  clear,  how- 
ever, that  her  story  got  no  enthusiastic  acceptance.2 

During  the  summer  of  1439  she  moved  uneasily  up  and 
down  the  Loire,  trying  to  make  good  her  claims.  The 
king  and  his  council  would  not  acknowledge  her,  though, 
according  to  one  story,  she  gained  admission  to  Charles's 
presence.3  Finding  herself  discredited,  she  again  took  to 
arms,  and  in  the  company  of  a  few  soldiers  carried  on  a 
marauding  warfare  in  the  province  of  Maine.4  The  next 
year,  with  a  band  of  freebooters  whose  professed  object 
was  the  relief  of  Harfleur,  she  approached  Paris,  creating 
some  excitement  by  her  pretensions.  At  length  the  au- 
thorities decided  to  put  an  end  to  the  strange  delusion. 
By  order  of  the  Parliament  and  of  the  University  of  Paris 
Claude  was  seized,  brought  to  the  city,  and  exhibited  on 

1  P.  v.  323  et  seq. ;  Calmet,  Hist.  Lorraine,  v.  189,  Ixxi. 

2  P.  v.  331. 

3  P.  iv.  281,  Sala. 

4  P.  v.  332. 


348  JOAN   OF   ARC. 

the  stone  near  the  court-house  where  cheats  were  exposed. 
Her  true  story  was  rehearsed  to  the  people  by  the  crier, 
with  embellishments  which  may  well  have  been  apocryphal.1 
After  this  exposure  she  was  let  go  her  way,  in  utter  con- 
tempt, and  was  almost  instantly  forgotten.  Those  whom 
she  had  deluded  and  those  who  had  pretended  to  believe 
in  her  had  no  wish  to  perpetuate  her  memory.  Nearly 
twenty  years  later  Eene  of  Anjou  pardoned  her  out  of  the 
prison  into  which  some  obscure  quarrel  had  cast  her.2 

The  truce  made  in  1444  lasted  five  years.  In  1449  the 
1444-  English  government  was  weak,  on  the  verge  of 
civil  war  at  home,  unable  to  control  its  mercenary 
captains,  and  too  proud  to  give  up  the  English  possessions 
in  northern  France  for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  country 
about  Bordeaux,  which  had  been  held  for  two  centuries 
and  a  half  and  whose  people  really  desired  English  rule. 
The  French  were  strong,  united,  well  organized,  refreshed 

1  Beaucourt,  iii.  20  ;  Journ  Bourg.,  ann.  1440. 

2  See  Lecoy,  Le  roi  Rene,  i.  308,  324.     M.  Boucher  de  Molandou 
(Famille  de  J.,  127  et  seq.)  supposes  this  to  be  another  woman,  who 
imposed  upon  some  of  Joan's  more  distant  relatives  even  after  the 
proceedings  for  rehabilitation  had  been  begun.     For  an  imitation  of 
Joan,  see  Vallet  de  V.,  Charles  VII.,  ii.  456  ;   Bourdignd,  Chron. 
d' Anjou,  ii.  212 ;  Jean  de  Troyes,  ann.  1460.     The  false   Joans  left 
no  trace  on  the  records  of  the  second  trial.     I  had  long  supposed 
that  the  most   preposterous  credulity  in  the  world  was  that  of  a 
French  "freethinker."      One  of  these,  M.  Lesigne,  in  his  La   Fin 
d'une  Legende,  published  in  1889,  maintains  that  the  English  saved 
Joan  alive  for  fear  of  reprisals.     A  later  and  perfectly  orthodox  per- 
son has  fairly  outdone  him  by  writing  a  sizable  book  to  show  that 
Joan  and  Claude  were  sisters,  who  saved  France  and  tried  to  save 
England  from  the  Templars  or  freemasons,  of  whom  Winchester  was 
grand  master.      Unfortunately,  Claude  was  flighty,  and  fell  under 
the  influence  of  a  lodge  of  female  freemasons,  whereby  her  morals 
were  seriously  corrupted.    Les  Dessous  de  VHistoire,  by  Francis  Andre'. 
Of  course,  it  may  be  said  that  M.  Lesigne  is  merely  incredibly  credu- 
lous, while  M.  Andre"  is  positively  insane.     Really  there  is  not  much 
difference.     For  a  review  of  the  question,  see  Lefevre  Pontalis,  La 
fausse  Jeanne  d'Arc. 


THE   REHABILITATION.  349 

for  the  battle.  The  English  gave  the  provocation  which 
the  French  desired.  War  broke  out,  and  Normandy  was 
lost  to  the  English  as  fast  as  the  French  troops  could 
march  through  it.  In  October,  1449,  Charles  entered 
Kouen,  and  by  1450  he  had  conquered  all  northern  France 
except  Calais. 

In  February,  1450,  while  he  was  still  near  Rouen, 
Charles  issued  a  commission  to  William  Bouille, 
a  doctor  in  theology,  to  make  inquiry  concerning 
the  trial  of  Joan.1  Her  condemnation  as  a  witch  had  been 
intended  to  injure  Charles  in  the  opinion  of  all  Europe, 
and  to  some  extent  the  intention  had  been  accomplished. 
Now  that  he  had  the  official  record  of  the  trial  in  his  hands, 
and  many  of  the  men  who  had  taken  part  in  it  under  his 
control,  Charles  meant  to  reverse  the  judgment  which  had 
declared  him  to  have  gained  his  throne  by  the  help  of 
sorcery.2  Some  regard  for  Joan's  reputation  may  well 
have  joined  these  political  motives. 

Without  delay  Bouille  took  at  Rouen  the  depositions  of 
the  Dominicans  La  Pierre  and  Ladvenu,  of  the  notary 
Manchon  and  of  several  others  who  had  seen  Joan  just 
before  her  death.3  He  had  no  jurisdiction,  however,  except 
that  of  a  commissioner  to  take  evidence,  and  his  labors 
lasted  but  a  few  days.  Afterwards  he  prepared  a  memoir 
or  opinion  favorable  to  Joan,  for  the  use  of  the  judges  in 
her  new  trial  when  that  new  trial  should  be  granted  by 
the  pope.4 

For  some  time  nothing  more  could  be  done.  Joan  had 
been  tried  before  an  ecclesiastical  court,  and  without  the 
pope's  orders  its  proceedings  could  not  be  reviewed.  Her 
condemnation  had  been  a  political  act,  offensive  to  the 
French,  and  to  reverse  her  sentence  would  be  a  political 

1  P.  ii.  1  ;  Beaucourt,  v.  360,  n. 

2  See  P.  vi.  325,  opinion  of  Bouilld. 

3  P.  ii.  2  et  seq. 

4  P.  vi.  323. 


350  JOAN   OF  ABC. 

act  offensive  to  England.  The  pope,  Nicholas  V.,  did  not 
wish  to  offend  the  English,  and  his  relations  with  Charles 
were  not  altogether  pleasant. 

About  two  years  later,  the  French  cardinal  Estoute- 
ville,  then  the  papal  legate,  together  with  the 
inquisitor  Brehal,  issued  another  commission  to 
take  evidence,  and  under  its  authority  more  than  twenty 
witnesses  were  examined  at  Rouen.1  The  object  of  Es- 
touteville's  mission  to  Charles  was  to  secure  for  the  pope 
an  increase  of  authority  over  the  French  clergy,  and  the 
legate  may  have  been  willing  to  humor  the  king  in  the 
matter  of  Joan,  especially  as  the  perpetuation  of  the  tes- 
timony of  a  few  witnesses  in  no  way  committed  the  pope. 
Estouteville's  negotiations  with  Charles  were  not  alto- 
gether successful,  and  no  further  legal  steps  in  Joan's 
case  were  taken  for  about  three  years  more.2 

The  pride  of  France  was  too  deeply  engaged  to  let  the 
matter  drop.  The  French  inquisitor,  Brehal,  was  alto- 
gether under  the  influence  of  the  court ;  and  perhaps  be- 
cause he  was  bidden,  perhaps,  also,  because  he  was  really 
convinced  of  Joan's  innocence,  he  submitted  the  minutes 
of  the  first  trial,  together  with  the  evidence  taken  in  1450 
and  1452,  to  distinguished  experts  in  matters  ecclesiastical. 
Like  experts  who  are  nowadays  engaged  by  a  party  to  a 
suit,  these  men  knew  what  opinion  was  expected  of  them, 
and  they  made  a  report  favorable  to  Joan,  doubtless  with 
reasonable  sincerity.  Elaborate  written  opinions  were 
thus  rendered,  some  by  well-known  French  churchmen, 
others  by  officials  of  the  Roman  court,  and  these  were 
used,  apparently,  to  influence  the  pope  and  his  councilors.3 

With  Nicholas  V.  neither  the  opinion  of  experts  nor  the 
personal  appeals  of  Brehal,  made  in  more  than  one  visit  to 

1  P.  ii.  291  et  seq.     See  Belon  and  Balme,  Jean  Brehal. 

2  Beaucourt,  v.  363. 

8  See  Belon  and  Balme,  Jean  Brehal,  46,  and  the  text  of  the  opin- 
ions in  P.  vi. 


THE   REHABILITATION.  351 

Rome,  were  of  any  avail.  Early  in  1455  Nicholas  died 
and  was  succeeded  by  a  Spaniard,  the  first  of  the 
Borgias,  Calixtus  III.  The  new  pope  was  ready 
to  act,  but  before  his  bull  was  issued  those  in  charge  of  the 
case  thought  best  to  change  the  form  of  the  petition  for  a 
new  trial.  For  five  years  it  had  been  urged  in  the  name 
of  Charles,  but  in  order  to  make  the  proceedings  less 
offensive  to  the  English,  or  for  some  other  reason,  a  new 
petition  was  brought  in  the  name  of  Joan's  mother,  Isabel, 
and  of  her  two  brothers,  Peter  and  John.1  Begun  in  this 
way,  the  new  trial  would  seem  more  like  an  act  of  private 
justice,  less  like  political  revenge.  The  bull  of  Pope  Ca- 
lixtus, issued  June  11,  1455,  directed  John  Juvenal  des 
Ursins,  archbishop  of  Rheims,  William  Chartier,  bishop 
of  Paris,  and  Richard  Olivier,  bishop  of  Coutances,  with  a 
representative  of  the  Inquisition,  to  reopen  Joan's  case, 
and  to  make  therein  a  just  decision  which  they  should 
cause  to  be  observed.2  All  the  judges  were  strong  sup- 
porters of  Charles  and  of  the  French  monarchy,  and  it  is 
doing  them  no  injustice  to  say  that  their  decision  was 
predetermined  like  that  of  Cauchon. 

On  November  7  of  the  same  year,  the  court  held  its  first 
sitting  in  the  cathedral  of  Paris.  Isabel  appeared  with 
her  sons,  some  of  her  other  kinsfolk,  and  some  of  the  men 
of  Orleans,  in  which  city  she  had  been  living  for  fifteen 
years.  Helped  by  the  learned  counsel  who  advised  her, 
she  told  the  story  of  her  daughter's  wrongs,  weeping 
bitterly  amidst  the  shouts  and  cries  of  the  excited  multi- 
tude. So  great  was  the  tumult  that  the  judges  and  parties 
at  length  withdrew  into  the  sacristy.  There,  doubtless  for 
the  sake  of  keeping  an  appearance  of  impartiality  in  the 
official  report  of  their  proceedings,  the  judges  told  Isabel 
that  it  was  not  easy  to  grant  what  she  asked,  inasmuch  as 

1  P.  ii.  95  ;  Beaucourt,  v.  368  ;  Belon  and  Balme,  66. 

2  P.  ii.  95.     The  choice  of  a  representative  of  the  Inquisition  was 
left  to  the  bishops.     Bre'hal  was  chosen,  as  a  matter  of  course. 


352  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

there  was  grave  presumption  of  her  daughter's  guilt. 
They  promised,  however,  to  examine  the  matter  care- 
fully.1 

Ten  days  later,  the  court  held  another  public  session 
in  the  cathedral.  In  the  presence  of  an  enormous  crowd, 
one  of  Isabel's  counsel  opened  the  case  with  a  panegyric 
on  Joan  and  a  fierce  attack  upon  Cauchon  and  his  col- 
leagues. In  Orleans,  in  Rheims,  even  in  Rouen,  no 
panegyric  would  have  been  needed,  but  the  men  of  Paris 
had  never  seen  Joan.  They  remembered  only  the  terror 
of  the  day  when  she  attacked  the  gate  of  St.  Honore,  and 
the  more  recent  pillorying  of  her  wretched  counterfeit. 
Doubtless  these  public  sessions  were  intended  to  influence 
their  opinion.2 

To  tell  in  detail  the  story  of  Joan's  second  trial  would 
be  needlessly  wearisome.  Many  witnesses  were  examined 
at  Domremy  3  and  Yaucouleurs,4  in  Orleans  5  and  Rouen.5 
Among  them  were  notable  men  :  princes  of  the  blood, 
such  as  Alengon,  —  Joan's  "  fair  duke,"  —  and  the  Bas- 
tard of  Orleans,  now  count  of  Dunois  ;  old  soldiers  like 
Gaucourt  and  Thibaud  of  Armagnac ;  royal  councilors 
like  Simon  Charles ;  there  were  substantial  burghers  and 

*  O 

burghers'  wives  from  Orleans,  among  them  Charlotte 
Boucher,  now  a  mother,"  who  as  a  child  shared  Joan's 
bed.  At  Domremy  there  testified  the  neighbors  of  Joan's 
childhood  and  the  girls  of  her  own  age ;  at  Vaucouleurs 
her  uncle  Laxart,  Catherine  le  Royer,  with  whom  she 
spent  her  weeks  of  waiting,  and  her  first  companions  in 

1  P.  ii.  87  et  seq. ;  iii.  368. 

2  P.  ii.  92  et  seq. 

3  P.  ii.  387  et  seq. 

4  P.  ii.  435  et  seq.  - 
6  P.  iii.  1  et  seq. 

6  P.  iii.  128  et  seq.     Some  depositions,  also,  were  taken  at  Paris 
and  elsewhere. 

7  B.  de  Molandon,  Jacques  Boucher,  in  Mem.  soc.  arch.  hist.  Orleanais, 
t.  xxii.  428. 


THE   EEHABILITATION.  353 

arms,  John  of  Metz  and  Bertrand  of  Poulengy.  Aulon 
her  squire,  Coutes  her  page,  Pasquerel  her  confessor,  told 
what  they  had  heard  and  seen.  In  Rouen  were  examined 
the  notaries  who  took  down  her  words,  the  sergeant  who 
served  her  with  process,  the  physicians  who  attended  her, 
the  common  people  who  went  to  see  her  in  her  dungeon 
out  of  curiosity.  Courcelles  testified,  who  had  voted  to 
put  her  to  the  torture,  and  so  did  the  wretch  who  would 
have  stretched  her  on  the  rack.  Considerably  more  than 
one  hundred  depositions  were  taken  at  this  time,  in  addi- 
tion to  those  which  had  been  taken  under  the  commis- 
sions of  Bouille  and  Estouteville. 

As  was  to  be  expected  under  the  circumstances,  the 
testimony  was  favorable  to  Joan.  It  seems  to  have  been 
given  willingly.  Two  or  three  of  those  who  took  part  in 
the  first  trial  refused,  without  evil  consequence,  to  con- 
demn its  proceedings  or  to  take  part  in  Joan's  eulogy.1 
The  witnesses  were  all  asked  the  same  questions,  and 
therefore  their  answers  were  sometimes  mechanical  and 
stereotyped.  Very  many  of  these  answers,  however, 
were  made  with  much  fullness  and  freedom,  and  even  in 
the  abridged  report  often  illustrate  the  character  of  the 
witnesses  as  well  as  give  information  about  Joan.  The 
substance  of  the  depositions  is  to  be  found  in  the  preced- 
ing chapters,  but  there  are  one  or  two  peculiarities  of  the 
testimony  which  should  be  noticed  here. 

In  this  mass  of  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  deposi- 
tions, including  those  taken  by  Bouille  and  Estouteville, 
the  apparent  freshness  of  the  witnesses'  recollections  is 

1  See  P.  iii.  183.  Marguerie  admitted  that  the  English  were  actu- 
ated by  hatred,  but  asserted  that  some  notable  men  acted  from  proper 
motives.  Probably  he  was  thinking  of  himself.  He  also  denied  that 
Joan  submitted  to  the  church,  though  her  friends  wished  to  prove 
such  a  submission.  Undoubtedly  most  of  the  assessors  who  testified 
at  the  rehabilitation  represented  themselves  as  having  favored  Joan 
at  the  first  trial  more  than  they  actually  had  done. 


354  JOAN    OP   ARC. 

noteworthy,  and  especially  the  tenacity  with  which  phrases 
used  by  Joan  stuck  in  the  memory.  The  record  of  the 
testimony  was  made  in  Latin,1  but  these  phrases  were 
often  left  in  their  original  French.2  Seldom  do  they 
have  any  trace  of  the  personality  of  the  witness,  almost 
always  they  are  full  of  the  personality  of  Joan,  as  exhib- 
ited in  the  language  taken  down  from  her  own  lips  and 
found  in  the  minutes  of  her  trial.  Even  when  the  wit- 
nesses' recollection  of  her  words  is  translated  into  Latin, 
her  quaint  terseness  can  often  be  recognized. 

Most  of  the  deponents,  in  closing  their  testimony,  for- 
mally declared  that  they  believed  Joan  had  been  a  pious 
Catholic  and  a  good  girl.  To  this  formal  declaration 
some  added  an  opinion  plainly  individual.  The  rude 
soldier  Macy,  who  had  practiced  his  horse  -  play  on  her 
at  Beaurevoir,  ended  his  testimony  with  the  words,  "  I 
believe  she  is  in  paradise."  3  "  I  do  not  doubt  that  she 
died  a  Catholic,"  said  her  confessor  Ladvenu  ;  "  indeed,  I 
wish  my  soul  were  now  where  I  believe  Joan's  soul  to 
be."  4  "  In  my  opinion  she  was  a  very  good  Christian," 
said  her  squire  Aulon ;  "  and  she  must  have  been  in- 
spired, for  she  loved  all  that  a  good  Christian  ought  to 
love,  and  especially  she  loved  well  any  right  valiant  fellow 
whom  she  knew  to  be  of  chaste  life." 5  "I  believe  that 
she  was  led  by  the  spirit  of  God,  and  that  there  was  in 
her  a  virtue  divine,  not  human,"  said  a  lawyer  who  had 
seen  her  at  Orleans.6  "  It  was  a  great  consolation  to  con- 
verse with  her,"  said  Beauharnais,  a  burgher  of  the  city." 

The  rest  of  1455  and  the  first  six  months  of  1456  were 
spent  in  taking  testimony,  in  framing  articles,  in  citing 

1  Except  that  of  Aulon,  and  those  taken  by  BoniHe*. 

2  See  P.  iii.  12,  48,  53,  68,  96,  97,  98,  126,  155, 168,  202. 
8  P.  iii.  123. 

4  P.  iii.  169. 

5  P.  iii.  219. 

6  P.  iii.  128,  Viole. 

7  P.  iii.  31. 


THE   REHABILITATION.  355 

the  heirs  of  Cauchon  to  appear  before  the  tribunal,  and 
in  making  and  hearing  lengthy  arguments.  On 
July  7,  at  about  eight  o'clock  in  the  morning,  in 
the  great  hall  of  the  archbishop's  palace  at  Rouen,  the 
judges  pronounced  sentence,  as  follows  :  "  We  declare  and, 
in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  justice,  we  decree 
that  the  articles  set  forth  in  the  case  submitted  to  us  and 
in  the  sentence  pronounced  against  the  said  deceased, 
were  corruptly,  deceitfully,  calumniously,  fraudulently, 
and  maliciously  put  together  from  the  confession  of  the 
said  deceased,  by  suppressing  truth  and  expressing  false- 
hood in  matters  of  substance  material  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  case.  Many  aggravating  circumstances  not 
contained  in  the  proceedings  and  in  the  confession  were 
improperly  inserted,  while  some  alleviating  circumstances 
therein  were  passed  over,  and  the  language  thereof  was 
substantially  altered.  Wherefore  we  avoid  and  annul  the 
said  articles  as  false,  as  calumniously  and  fraudulently 
prepared,  and  as  inconsistent  with  the  confession  of  the 
accused,  and  we  adjudge  that  the  said  articles,  which  we 
have  caused  to  be  taken  from  the  files,  jbe  here  formally 
destroyed. 

"  We  decide,  pronounce,  decree,  and^  declare  that  the 
said  proceedings  and  sentence,  containir^  fraud,  calumny, 
injustice,  inconsistency,  Vnd  manifest  error  in  law  and 
fact,  together  with  the  saici  abjuration Jexecution,  and  all 
matters  thereafter  followingVhave  beel,  are,  and  shall  be 
null,  invalid,  and  void.  Wherefore,  at  is  reasonable  and 
needful,  we  avoid  and  annul  thevfame,Jand  pronounce  them 
to  be  of  none  effect,  declaring  that  thje  said  Joan,  together 
with  her  kinsfolk  and  all  plaintiff*  in  this  suit,  has  re- 
ceived no  mark  or  stain  of  infamy  lay  reason  of  the  fore- 
going, but  is  and  shall  be  harmless[and  cleared  from  the 
foregoing,  and  so  far  as  is  needful  we  hereby  absolutely 
clear  her. 

"  We  order  that  execution  or  solemn  notification  of  this 


356  JOAN   OF  ARC. 

our  sentence  shall  be  made  forthwith  in  this  city,  in  two 
places  ;  to  wit,  to-day  in  the  place  of  St.  Ouen,  by  a  pub- 
lic procession  and  a  public  sermon,  and  to-morrow  in  the 
Old  Market,  the  place  in  which  the  said  Joan  was  cruelly 
and  horribly  burned  to  death,  by  a  solemn  discourse,  and 
by  the  erection  of  a  decent  cross  to  keep  her  in  everlast- 
ing remembrance,  and  to  provoke  prayers  for  her  salva- 
tion and  that  of  other  departed  souls.  The  further 
execution  and  notification  of  our  said  sentence,  with  the 
solemn  proclamation  thereof  in  the  cities  and  principal 
places  of  the  realm,  and  other  things  to  be  done,  if  any 
there  be,  we  reserve  for  our  disposal  hereafter  as  may 
seem  to  us  fitting." 

A  fortnight  later,  upon  further  order  of  the  court,  there 
was  a  procession  at  Orleans  also,  attended  by  two  of  the 
judges.  As  has  been  said  already,  the  people  of  Orleans 
had  waited  for  no  judicial  decree  to  celebrate  every  year 
the  deliverance  of  their  city  by  Joan  the  Maid. 


APPENDIX. 


A.   THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHARLES  VII. 

THE  character  of  Charles  VII.  has  proved  a  puzzle  to  most 
historians.  A  prediction,  made  at  almost  any  time  in  the  first 
twelve  years  of  his  reign,  that  he  would  die  deservedly  surnamed 
the  Victorious,  would  have  seemed  quite  as  absurd  as  a  like  pre- 
diction made  in  1895  concerning  the  Chinese  emperor.  The 
disposition  to  attribute  to  the  character  of  a  mediaeval  monarch 
the  success  or  failure  which  attended  his  reign  is  so  strong  that 
all  sorts  of  theories  have  been  formed  to  account  for  the  change 
in  Charles's  fortunes.  The  theory  accepted  for  centuries  gave 
the  credit  of  the  change  to  Agnes  Sorel,  who  was  supposed  to 
have  roused  the  energies  of  an  indolent  but  able  king.  Recent 
investigation  has  shown,  however,  that  this  Sorel  legend  is  pure 
fiction,  that  Agnes  did  not  become  the  king's  mistress  until  he 
was  about  forty  years  old  and  had  reigned  twenty  years,  that  the 
letters  attributed  to  her  are  modern  forgeries,  that  she  had  no 
political  influence  whatever,  and  differed  from  the  other  royal 
mistresses  only  in  possessing  rather  uncommon  beauty.  If 
Agnes  Sorel's  meeting  with  Charles  be  too  late  to  account  for 
his  regeneration,  Joan's  appearance  is  too  early,  since  Charles 
was  undoubtedly  sunk  in  torpor  for  several  years  after  Joan's 
capture. 

The  latest  historian  of  Charles  VII.,  the  Marquis  de  Beau- 
court,  who  has  finally  disposed  of  the  Sorel  legend,  has  developed 
a  theory  of  Charles's  character  which  differs  somewhat  from  any 
before  suggested.  According  to  him,  Charles  was  a  man  of 
exceptional  ability  and  excellent  intentions,  who  showed  much 
vigor  as  a  boy  of  eighteen,  later  yielded  himself  to  the  influence 
of  bad  favorites,  whose  control  he  threw  off  from  time  to  time, 
until  at  the  age  of  thirty-two  or  thereabouts  he  asserted  him- 


358  APPENDIX. 

self  as  a  great  ruler,  and  continued  to  direct  the  affairs  of 
France  for  more  than  twenty  years,  when  illness  and  a  weak 
constitution  made  an  indolent  invalid  of  him  for  a  few  years 
before  his  death. 

M.  de  Beaucourt  is  a  historian  always  to  be  mentioned  with 
high  respect.  His  learning  is  very  great,  his  industry  untiring, 
and,  though  the  plan  of  his  work  is  at  times  a  little  confusing, 
his  style  is  always  clear  and  readable.  More  valuable  than  any 
of  these  qualities  is  his  absolute  candor  in  stating  the  facts  he 
has  discovered.  However  much  any  one  of  these  may  conflict 
with  his  theories,  M.  de  Beaucourt  always  gives  it  in  full,  before 
trying  to  explain  it  away.  His  theories  are  those  of  a  strong 
supporter  of  the  monarchy  and  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church, 
and  they  color  deeply  his  opinions  of  the  men  and  events  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  Had  Charles  VII.  been  only  a  duke,  it  is  clear 
that  he  would  have  received  very  different  treatment  at  M.  de 
Beaucourt's  hands.  The  divinity  that  hedges  a  king,  and  espe- 
cially a  king  of  France,  has  so  affected  the  historian's  judgment 
that  he  is  always  finding  excuses  for  his  hero.  Two  examples 
of  his  partiality  will  suffice. 

Charles  VII.  was  an  unfaithful  husband.  It  was  not  his  in- 
fidelity that  made  him  a  bad  ruler ;  indeed,  as  has  just  been 
observed,  a  popular  legend  has  long  given  to  one  of  his  lapses 
the  credit  of  having  aroused  him  from  a  life  of  unkingly  sloth 
to  a  sense  of  his  royal  duties.  M.  de  Beaucourt  is  so  desirous 
of  saving  as  much  as  possible  of  Charles's  reputation  that  he 
tries  to  show  that  his  early  married  life  was  exemplary,  and  that 
his  excesses  were  confined  to  his  later  years.1  To  establish  this, 
he  proves  conclusively  that  Charles  issued  edicts  against  profane 
swearing  and  was  observant  of  the  rites  of  the  church ;  that  he 
heard  three  masses  a  day,  recited  the  canonical  hours  and  the 
office  for  the  dead,  confessed  himself  daily,  and  communicated 
on  all  feast  days.  In  common  life,  M.  de  Beaucourt  knows  very 
well  that  all  this,  however  praiseworthy,  is  worthless  as  evidence 
of  marital  fidelity,  and  in  his  zeal  to  eulogize  the  king  he  so  far 
forgets  logic,  that  he  produces  excellent  evidence  of  Charles's 
continued  habits  of  devotion  at  a  time  when  his  debauchery  is 
admitted. 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  177  et  seq. 


APPENDIX.  359 

Again,  M.  de  Beaucourt,  like  the  brave  gentleman  he  is, 
feels  keenly  Charles's  betrayal  of  Joan.  Many  of  the  excuses  he 
offers  for  the  king  he  would  consider  deadly  insults  if  applied 
to  himself  in  like  case ;  one  excuse  is  of  surpassing  ingenuity. 
As  evidence  that  the  king  "  remained  constantly  faithful  to  the 
memory  of  Joan  of  Arc,"  he  tells  us  that  in  1441,  at  the  head 
of  his  army,  he  passed  through  the  village  of  Greux  near  Dom- 
remy,  and  that  a  few  years  afterward  he  actually  slept  one 
night  in  the  place.1 

The  illustrations  given  show  the  strength  of  M.  de  Beau- 
court's  prejudices ;  it  would  be  very  unfair  to  imply  that  he 
does  not  give  much  stronger  reasons  for  his  opinion  of  Charles's 
character  and  abilities.  As  he  is  Charles's  strongest  champion, 
his  arguments  deserve  careful  consideration.  M.  de  Beaucourt 
quotes  a  phrase  of  Lacordaire : 2  "  It  belongs  to  those  of  a  given 
age  to  judge  its  affairs  and  its  men,"  and  he  cites  as  evidence  of 
Charles's  reputation  the  compliments  paid  him  by  foreign  em- 
bassies, and  the  eulogies  of  him  written  by  the  court  poet  and 
the  court  chroniclers.  Such  evidence,  of  course,  is  worthless, 
but  that  of  two  independent  historians,  Thomas  Basin,  bishop 
of  Lisieux,  and  George  Chastellain,  the  Burgundian,  deserves 
fuller  consideration.  At  the  first  reading,  Basin  does  certainly 
seem  to  speak  of  Charles  with  great  respect,  not  only  in  the 
passage  quoted  by  M.  de  Beaucourt,  but  in  many  other  places  as 
well.  Closer  examination  shows  the  singular  reason  of  his  ad- 
miration. The  principal  motive  of  Basin's  history  was  hatred 
of  Louis  XI.,  and  he  used  praise  of  the  father  simply  as  a  foil  to 
abuse  of  the  son.  Thus  he  lays  great  stress  upon  Charles's  faith 
in  keeping  his  promises  in  order  that  he  may  emphasize  the  utter 
faithlessness  of  Louis.  Whenever,  which  is  seldom,  he  forgets 
for  a  moment  his  hatred  of  Louis,  his  real  opinion  of  Charles 
appears,  as  when,  for  example,  he  describes  him  as  "  drenching 
his  passions  in  drunkenness  and  debauchery,  stupid  in  sloth  and 
self-indulgence."  8 

The  praise  given  by  Chastellain  to  Charles  VII.  is  largely  of 
the  same  sort.  Sometimes  he,  too,  wished  to  express  his  dis- 
approval of  Louis  ; 4  sometimes  his  praise  was  written  directly 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  256,  256.  3  Beaucourt,  vi.  445. 

8  Basin,  i.  116.  4  Chastellain,  vii.  325,  n. 


360  APPENDIX. 

for  Charles's  consumption.1  His  real  opinion  of  the  king  proba- 
bly finds  its  best  expression  in  "  La  mort  du  roy  Charles  VII."  2 
a  Mystery  in  which  France  thanks  Charles  for  her  deliverance, 
and  the  king  modestly  refers  the  thanks  to  his  lords  and  cap- 
tains. Their  replies  occupy  more  than  three  quarters  of  the 
poem,  and  are  nearly  as  modest  as  the  king's.  Doubtless 
Chastellain  was  affected  by  the  traditional  respect  which  at- 
tended a  king,  but  he  knew  that  Charles's  success  was  due  to 
his  lieutenants  and  ministers. 

Any  real  knowledge  of  the  character  of  Charles  VII.  must  be 
derived,  of  course,  not  from  a  balancing  of  the  opinions  of  his 
contemporaries,  but  from  a  study  of  the  events  of  his  life. 
He  was  born  in  1403,  of  a  father  who  had  been  intermittently 
insane  for  more  than  ten  years,  and  of  a  mother  whose  char- 
acter made  Charles's  doubts  concerning  his  paternity  quite  rea- 
sonable, though  they  were  probably  unjust.  The  court  in 
which  he  was  brought  up  was  violent  and  corrupt ;  from  this 
court  he  was  literally  carried  off  in  his  night-clothes  by  a  bravo, 
himself  violent  and  corrupt,  whose  only  virtue  was  his  courage. 
Because  Tanneguy  du  Chatel  and  others  like  him  transported 
the  Dauphin  rapidly  from  place  to  place  during  several  years, 
M.  de  Beaucourt  thinks  the  boy  showed  enei'gy  and  capacity, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  of  his  real  intervention  in  war  or  in 
politics,  and  he  is  easily  acquitted  of  the  guilt  of  the  murder  at 
Montereau,  because,  though  he  probably  Knew  the  plot,  he  could 
not  have  prevented  its  execution.  At  nineteen  years  of  age,  in 
1422,  he  became  king.  From  1422  to  1429  he  was  under  the 
control  of  a  succession  of  worthless  favorites  and  made  hardly 
a  pretense  of  ruling.  He  is  said  to  have  borne  a  personal 
grudge  against  Richemont  because  the  constable  slaughtered 
one  or  two  of  these  favorites  almost  in  the  king's  own  sight. 
Whether  this  grudge  was  real,  or  merely  attributed  to  Charles 
by  a  later  favorite,  cannot  certainly  be  known,  so  feeble  was 
Charles's  will.  Probably  it  was  real.  Dui'ing  all  this  time  his 
crown  and  the  national  existence  of  France  were  at  stake, 
yet  he  never  took  the  field,  his  conduct  in  this  respect  being,  I 
believe,  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  his  age.  How  he 
acted  during  Joan's  attempts  to  raise  his  fortunes  is  set  forth 
1  Chastellaiu,  vi.  420  et  seq.  2  Chastellain,  vi.  437. 


APPENDIX.  361 

in  this  book.  After  her  capture  he  remained  for  about  three 
years  longer  in  the  control  of  La  Tremoille,  as  inactive  as  he  had 
been  before  his  coronation.  In  1433  Charles  was  thirty  years 
old,  an  age  at  which  nearly  all  the  princes  of  his  time,  Henry 
IV.,  Henry  V.,  Louis  XL,  Philip  the  Good,  Bedford,  the  Bas- 
tard of  Orleans,  Alen§on,  had  made  their  mark  on  the  world  for 
good  or  evil.  Charles  VIL,  like  Charles  VI.  and  Henry  VI., 
had  of  himself  accomplished  nothing. 

At  this  time  Charles  of  Anjou,  the  king's  brother-in-law, 
seized  La  Tre'nioille  as  the  favorite  slept  at  Chinon,  and  drove 
him  from  court.  The  king  slept  near  by,  and  at  first  was  dis- 
turbed at  the  noise  made  by  the  conspirators,  but  was  soon 
quieted  by  the  queen,  who  was  probably  a  party  to  the  plot.1 
The  princes  and  noblemen  who  thus  got  the  control  of  his 
person  were  distinctly  more  patriotic  than  La  Trdmoille,  and 
France  gained  by  the  change  ;  but  Charles  was  as  inert  under 
one  master  as  under  the  other.2  The  treaty  of  Arras  was  made 
by  his  ministers.8 

In  the  year  and  a  half  which  followed  the  treaty  of  Arras, 
Charles  VII.  showed  himself  as  little  concerned  in  the  affairs  of 
state  as  he  had  been  during  the  thirteen  yeai's  of  his  reign  which 
preceded  it.  One  minister  intrigued  against  another,  but  the 
king  was  indifferent.  Doubtless  the  government  of  France  was 
considerably  improved,  but  this  was  because  Yolande  and 
Charles  of  Anjou,  the  constable  and  his  supporters,  were  better 
rulers  than  La  Tre'moille,  and  were  willing  to  heed  the  just  rep- 
resentations of  the  bureaucracy  and  trained  civil  servants  of  the 
crown.  In  the  latter  part  of  1437,  however,  Charles  not  only 
took  the  field  in  person  for  the  first  time  since  the  campaign  of 
1429,  but  at  the  storming  of  Montereau  he  is  said  to  have 
shown  distinguished  personal  bravery.  How  his  conduct  is  to 
be  accounted  for,  we  do  not  precisely  know.  The  story  rests 
principally  upon  the  testimony  of  one  chronicler,  who  may  have 
exaggerated  Charles's  prowess  from  a  desire  to  please  him. 
Charles  was  very  moody  and  may  have  had  moments  of  exalta- 
tion as  well  as  months  of  depression,  in  any  case  his  conduct  at 

1  Beaucourt,  ii.  298  ;  Cagny,  fol.  96,  verso. 

2  Beaucourt,  ii.  298. 

8  The  duke  of  Burgundy  was  present  in  person. 


362  APPENDIX. 

Montereau  had  no  precedent  and  at  most  but  one  copy;  the 
war  went  on,  Charles  stayed  at  home.1  In  1439  the  people  of 
Paris,  partly  from  distrust  of  the  constable's  military  adminis- 
tration, partly  disgusted  at  Charles's  indifference,  complained 
that  the  king  paid  no  more  attention  to  the  affairs  of  state  than 
if  he  had  been  a  prisoner  of  the  Saracens.2  Loud  were  the 
complaints  of  the  States  General,  that  is,  of  the  respectable 
middle  classes. 

The  popular  dissatisfaction  seems  to  have  been  encouraged 
by  some  of  the  princes  of  the  blood,  who  were  dissatisfied  with 
their  share  in  the  government,  among  them,  Bourbon  and  Alen- 
gon.  The  conspirators  wished  to  get  possession  of  Charles's  per- 
son, as  the  duke  of  Burgundy  and  the  Armagnacs  used  to  fight 
for  the  possession  of  his  father.  Knowing  that  it  was  of  the  ut- 
most importance  to  be  able  to  speak  in  the  king's  name,  Riche- 
mont  and  Charles  of  Anjou  anticipated  their  rivals  and  carried 
Charles  VII.  from  place  to  place,  making  him  declare  himself 
in  the  strongest  terms  opposed  to  the  conspirators.  The  con- 
stable's energy  and  military  skill  triumphed,  aided,  no  doubt, 
by  the  good  sense  of  the  French  people,  who  were  pleased  at 
his  energetic  measures  against  the  brigands.  Throughout  the 
whole  affair  both  parties  were  clearly  persuaded  that  Charles 
could  be  made  to  do  anything  desired  by  those  who  controlled 
his  person.  The  attempts  of  1426  and  1433  were  repeated, 
though  with  happily  different  results. 

In  1440,  at  the  time  of  the  Praguerie,  Charles  VII.  was  thirty- 
seven  years  old,  and  had  reigned  eighteen  years.  He  was  fee- 
ble in  person,  and  timid  even  apart  from  war.8'  If  it  be  true 
that  during  the  first  half  of  his  reign  he  was  the  mere  tool  of 
others,  it  requires  strong  evidence  to  prove  him  a  great  con- 
structive statesman  in  the  later  h*alf.  His  new  advisers,  or  mas- 
ters, governed,  on  the  whole,  better  and  better,  and  they  did 
not  allow  the  king  to  pass  the  whole  of  his  time  in  retirement. 
Very  probably,  Charles  himself  liked  the  change,  and  was  not 
unwilling  occasionally  to  show  himself  in  public.  In  1441  he 
again  took  the  field,  and  published  an  account  of  his  own  per- 

1  See  Beaucourt,  iii.  50  ;  Cagny,  106,  verso. 

2  /our??.  Bourg.,  ann.  1439. 

3  See  Beaucourt,  iv.  87. 


APPENDIX.  363 

sonal  bravery  at  the  siege  of  Pontoise.1  In  1442  there  was  an- 
other attempt  by  the  princes  of  the  blood  to  get  control  of  the 
government,  the  dukes  of  Burgundy  and  Orleans  having  joined 
the  malcontents.  The  object  of  the  new  conspirators  appears 
plainly  by  their  memorial  to  the  king ;  it  was  the  overthrow  of 
the  new  state  of  affairs,  in  which  the  house  of  Anjou,  the  con. 
stable,  and  the  bureaucratic  middle  classes  governed  the  coun- 
try, and  a  return  to  the  old  regime  of  pension,  plunder,  and 
privilege.  'This  time  there  was  no  war.  In  Charles's  name 
the  bishop  of  Clermont  replied  to  the  malcontents,  and  these 
recognized  their  weakness.  It  seems  to  me  that  I  find  in  this 
reply  indications  that  what  I  have  called  the  bureaucracy,  men 
like  the  Des  Ursins,  Bre'ze',  and  Jacques  Coeur  were  gaining 
power  even  at  the  expense  of  Charles  of  Anjou  and  the  con- 
stable,2 but  all  these  were  united  to  oppose  the  arrogant  claims 
which  Burgundy,  Orleans,  Bourbon,  and  Alencon  were  united  in 
making.  To  suppose  that  the  king,  who  was  the  puppet  of  the 
struggle  of  1440,  really  directed  the  course  of  affairs  in  1442, 
would  be  absurd. 

In  1442  the  reform  of  the  administration  was  firmly  estab- 
lished. In  1442-43  there  was  a  successful  campaign  in  the 
southwest ;  the  constable  directed  its  operations,  the  king  ac- 
companied them.  While  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
Charles  had  any  larger  share  in  the  government  of  1443  than 
in  that  of  1433  or  1423,  he  must  have  been  pleased  at  his  new 
prosperity,  probably  became  less  morose  and  liked  to  appear  in 
public  instead  of  shunning  it.  I  see  no  reason  to  attribute  any 
part  of  this  not  very  considerable  change  to  Agnes  Sorel,  who 
became  one  of  the  royal  favorites  at  about  this  time. 

In  1444  came  the  truce  with  England,  and  in  1444-45  was 
undertaken  the  expedition  against  Metz,  possibly  in  order  to  em- 
ploy the  men  at  arms  who  would  otherwise  have  been  ravaging 
the  country.  Charles  took  no  part  in  the  direction  of  the  war, 
but  at  Nancy  and  at  Chalons  kept  a  court  which  was  splendid, 
as  befitted  his  bettered  fortunes.  Unfortunately,  its  morals  had 
not  improved  with  its  increased  state.8  The  king  was  still  the 

1  Beaucourt,  iii.  191. 

2  See  Beaucourt,  iv.  210. 

3  See  the  episode  of  the  death  of  Margaret  of  Scotland.    Beaucourt, 
iv.  106  et  seq. 


364  APPENDIX. 

puppet  of  any  one  who  controlled  his  person,  and  when,  in 
1446,  the  Dauphin  Louis  intrigued  against  his  ministers,  he  did 
not  take  into  account  the  danger  of  opposition  from  his  father's 
will,  but  only  the  awe  which  the  royal  person  might  strike 
into  some  of  the  conspirators.1  Philip  of  Burgundy  said  that 
Charles's  true  place  was  in  a  hermitage.2 

In  1449  the  war  with  England  broke  out  again,  and  Charles 
accompanied  his  army  in  its  triumphal  progress  through  Noi'- 
mandy.  When  that  campaign  of  a  few  months  was  over,  how- 
ever, even  M.  de  Beaucourt  admits  that  for  several  years 
Charles  gave  himself  to  pleasure,  debauchery,  and  unworthy  fa- 
vorites, and  he  urges,  in  extenuation,  that  these  favorites  no 
longer  governed  France.3  In  truth,  the  government  had  now 
passed  for  the  time  into  the  hands  of  Bre'ze'  and  men  of  his 
class,  who  kept  Charles  contented  with  money  and  mistresses, 
and  ruled  the  kingdom,  on  the  whole,  pretty  well.  The  guilt, 
if  guilt  there  be,  of  destroying  Jacques  Cffiur  rests  upon  them, 
and  not  upon  the  king,  whose  name  they  used. 

I  have  attempted  to  appreciate  Charles's  character,  not  to  give 
an  account  of  the  events  of  his  reign.  The  last  six  years  of  it, 
while  reasonably  prosperous  for  the  kingdom,  saw  the  king's 
health,  never  robust,  give  way  altogether.  His  temper  became 
constantly  morose,  he  suspected  all  those  about  him,  and  at  last 
is  said  to  have  hastened  death  by  starving  himself  for  fear  of 
poison. 

B.    THE  INSANITY  OR  INSPIRATION  OF  JOAN  OF 

ARC. 

THE  question  most  commonly  asked  about  Joan  of  Arc, 
"  Was  she  insane  or  inspired  ?  "  may  seem  to  have  received  an 
insufficient  answer  in  the  text,  and  yet  it  is  doubtful  if  any 
length  of  discussion  will  lead  to  an  answer  much  more  definite. 
The  facts  are  few  and,  for  the  most  part,  undisputed  ;  it  is  the 
inferences  to  be  drawn  from  these  facts  which  are  in  doubt. 
Joan  had  subjective  sensations  of  sight  and  sound,  perhaps  of 

1  See  Beaucourt,  iv.  194. 

2  See  Beaucourt,  iv.  208. 

3  Beaucourt,  v.  70. 


APPENDIX.  365 

other  senses,  without  external  cause  sufficient  to  produce  like 
sensations  in  others.  Precisely  what  these  sensations  were,  we 
do  not  know.  The  sensations  of  sounds  sometimes,  at  least, 
were  those  of  particular  words  ;  the  sensations  of  sight  were 
less  definite,  but  apparently  they  were  sometimes  visions  of 
definite  forms  in  human  similitude.  The  sensations  of  sound 
were  usually  accompanied  hy  a  somewhat  indefinite  sensation 
of  light.  Apart  from  these  abnormal  sensations,  Joan  seems  to 
have  been  a  girl  perfectly  healthy  and  well  developed,  both 
physically  and  mentally.  Except  so  far  as  these  sensations 
prove  the  contrary,  she  was  little  subject  to  exaltation  or  ner- 
vous excitement. 

From  these  facts,  the  philosophy  or  opinion  of  the  Middle 
Ages  with  certainty  and  without  difficulty  drew  the  conclusion 
of  inspiration  or  possession,  either  by  good  spirits  or  evil. 
Mediaeval  philosophy  did  not  deny  the  possibility  of  halluci- 
nation caused  by  disease  without  spiritual  intervention.  This 
possibility  was  recognized  in  Joan's  case.  The  choice  between 
disease  and  spirit  as  the  cause  of  a  given  sensation  was  made 
according  as  the  person,  apart  from  the  abnormal  sensation 
under  consideration,  appeared  diseased  or  healthy.  An  abnor- 
mal sensation  in  an  otherwise  healthy  person  was  unhesitatingly 
set  down  to  spiritual  intervention,  and  hence  Joan's  visions  and 
voices  were  set  to  the  account  either  of  God  or  the  Devil. 

Modern  opinion  or  philosophy  treats  sensations  like  those 
mentioned  as  invariably  the  result  of  a  morbid  condition  of  the 
brain  or  some  other  part  of  the  human  body.  The  fact  that 
the  person  shows  other  morbid  symptoms  is  hardly  deemed  to 
strengthen  this  supposition  of  disease,  which  is  considered  to  be 
incontrovertible  and  to  need  no  support.  Such  sensations  are 
called  hallucinations,  and  hallucinations  are  considered  symp- 
toms of  diseased  or  morbid  conditions  quite  as  infallible  as 
a  scurfy  skin  or  a  hemorrhage.  Precisely  what  the  disease  is 
may  require  further  investigation,  and  may  elude  investigation 
when  made,  but  some  disease  or  morbid  condition  is  assumed 
without  further  proof. 

Which  of  these  two  theories  is  correct,  the  modern  or  the 
medieval,  or  how  far  either  of  them  is  correct,  this  is  hardly 
the  place  to  discuss.  It  is  almost  as  difficult  for  an  intelligent 


366  APPENDIX. 

man  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century  to  disregard  the  opin- 
ion or  philosophy  which  I  have  called  modern,  as  it  would  have 
been  for  a  man  in  the  fifteenth  century  to  deny  the  possibility 
of  spiritual  possession.  A  few  observations  upon  the  modern 
theory  may,  however,  be  ventured. 

In  the  first  place,  no  one  can  define  precisely  what  morbid 
physical  condition  of  the  brain  or  other  part  of  the  body  is  the 
cause  of  sensations  like  those  of  Joan.  It  is  at  least  possible 
that  no  expert  now  'living,  though  he  should  have  the  most 
favorable  opportunity  to  perform  a  post-mortem  examination 
of  Joan's  body,  would  be  able  to  discover  any  morbid  physical 
condition  whatever  to  which  her  abnormal  sensations  could  rea- 
sonably be  attributed.  We  attribute  sensations  like  hers  to 
morbid  physical  conditions  by  analogy  and  by  a  sort  of  intel- 
lectual necessity,  rather  than  by  reason  of  a  course  of  unvarying 
experiments. 

Again,  modern  theory  and  usage  tend  more  and  more  to 
make  the  terms  "  morbid  "  and  "  abnormal  "  synonymous.  So 
far  has  this  tendency  carried  us  that  writers  have  maintained  in 
all  seriousness  that  genius  of  pretty  much  any  sort  is  the  result 
of  morbid  physical  conditions,  and  is  a  species  of  insanity.  If 
this  be  admitted,  Joan  was  almost  certainly  insane,  inasmuch  as, 
by  the  terms  of  the  supposition,  insanity  is  contrasted  not  with 
health  and  sense,  but  with  stupidity  and  inferiority. 

A  consideration  much  more  important  than  either  of  those 
just  touched  upon  remains.  Even  if  it  be  true  that  Joan's 
visions  and  voices  were  caused  by  physical  conditions  abnormal 
and  therefore  morbid,  the  discussion  is  not  concluded.  Every 
sensation,  according  to  the  accepted  philosophy,  must  have  a 
physical  cause  of  some  sort,  but  this  axiom  or  hypothesis,  or 
whatever  else  we  may  choose  to  call  it,  does  not  prevent  many 
persons  who  accept  it  from  believing  that  something  which  they 
call  God  does  nevertheless  play  an  important  part  in  the  affairs 
of  men.  In  this  place,  of  course,  it  is  impossible  to  discuss  if 
the  belief  in  God  be  true.  Whether  true  or  not,  it  unquestion- 
ably exists,  and  those  who  hold  it  may  believe  as  reasonably 
that  God  may  send  visions  by  the  physical  means  of  what  we 
call  disease,  as  that  He  maintained  the  American  Union  by  the 
physical  means  of  shot  and  shell,  or  inspired  a  poet  or  a  prophet 


APPENDIX.  367 

by  some  physical  means  as  yet  undiscovered.  The  man  who 
believes  in  God  may,  then,  believe  Joan  to  have  been  inspired, 
and,  most  probably,  will  believe  it.  The  man  who  does  not 
believe  in  God,  by  the  terms  of  the  supposition  cannot  believe 
her  to  have  been  inspired,  in  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word. 

What  has  been  said  concerning  Joan's  visions  and  voices 
applies  substantially  to  her  supposed  gift  of  prophecy.  She  cer- 
tainly foretold  the  deliverance  of  Orleans  and  the  coronation  at 
Rheims.  There  is  no  more  doubt  of  the  prophecy's  authenti- 
city than  of  its  fulfillment,  but  any  one  may  contend  that  good 
judgment  or  good  luck,  either  or  both,  caused  the  fortunate 
prophecy,  rather  than  Divine  Providence.  Moreover,  it  is  prac- 
tically certain  that  Joan  believed  that  her  voices  promised  her 
deliverance  from  prison,  a  real  deliverance,  and  not  the  allegor- 
ical deliverance  by  death  which  some  imaginative  writers  have 
construed  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise. 

What  I  have  called  modern  philosophy  may  admit  the  authen- 
ticity and  fulfillment  of  all  Joan's  predictions,  as  it  must  admit 
the  authenticity  and  fulfillment  of  some  of  them,  without  admit- 
ting her  divine  inspiration  or  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  divin- 
ity or  inspiration  in  the  universe.  Those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  believe  that  Divine  Providence  exists  will  probably  be  in- 
clined, though  they  may  not  be  compelled,  to  find  its  workings 
in  the  life  of  Joan  of  Arc.  Doubtless  their  theory  of  her  inspira- 
tion will  differ  more  or  less  from  that  in  vogue  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  but  this  difference  will  be  the  result  of  a  different 
theory  of  inspiration  in  general,  rather  than  of  a  different  theory 
of  Joan's  particular  case. 

It  seems  to  follow,  then,  that  our  opinion  concerning  Joan's 
insanity  or  inspiration  is  likely  to  depend  not  much  upon  our 
beliefs  concerning  Joan,  but  principally  upon  our  beliefs  con- 
cerning insanity  and  inspiration  in  general.  As  this  work  does 
not  pretend  to  treat  of  pathology,  metaphysics,  or  theology, 
the  matter  must  be  left  here. 


368  APPENDIX. 


C.    JOAN  OF  ARC  AND  ST.  CATHERINE  OF  SIENA. 

IN  order  to  understand  Joan  of  Arc,  it  is  desirable  to  com- 
pare her  with  the  visionaries  and  religious  enthusiasts  living 
near  her  time.  Of  these,  St.  Catherine  of  Siena  is  the  most 
distinguished. 

Catherine  Benincasa  was  the  child  of  a  dyer,  a  respectable 
citizen  of  Siena,  neither  rich  nor  poor.  Her  brothers  and  sis- 
ters, as  well  as  her  parents,  were  commonplace  people.  Before 
she  was  ten  years  old  she  saw  visions  and  heard  voices,  and, 
guided  by  them,  she  earnestly  desired  to  follow  the  religious 
life.  At  one  time  she  wished  to  disguise  herself  as  a  man,  and 
become  a  Dominican  monk.1  Opposed  by  all  those  about  her, 
she  did  not  desert  her  father's  house,  but  by  a  sweet  passive 
obstinacy,  drudging  by  day,  watching  and  praying  by  night, 
before  long  she  conquered  her  parents'  consent,  and  was  received 
as  a  Penitent  of  the  Third  Order  of  St.  Dominic.  Her  vigils, 
fastings,  and  self-mortifications  increased  asr  her  visions  multi- 
plied and  became  more  intense,  but  she  did'  not  give  herself  up 
to  a  life  of  seclusion.  If  a  man  or  woman  were  sick  of  a  dis- 
order so  loathsome  as  to  drive  away  all'-  oijher  help,  Catherine 
became  nurse,  and  aggravated  the  horrors  of  her  nursing  by  the 
most  fantastic  self-torture.  Her  fame  soon,  spread  through  her 
city  and  through  Tuscany.  She  stopped  the^feuds  of  her  towns- 
men, and  made  peace  between  cities.2  By  *the  counsel  of  her 
voices,  she  sought  to  end  the  Babylonish  captivity  of  the  church, 
traveled  to  Avignon,  and  helped  bring  the  pope  back  to  Rome. 
Though  she  had  the  most  exalted  notions  of  papal  and  ecclesi- 
astical authority,  she  addressed  individual  popes  and  cardinals 
with  the  utmost  boldness,  and  everywhere  denounced  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  church.  She  died  in  1380,  more  than  thirty 
years  before  Joan  was  born,  but  the  world  in  which  she  lived, 
in  its  ideals  and  habits,  was  essentially  the  same  as  Joan's. 

The  resemblance  of  Catherine's  career  to  that  of  Joan  is  strik- 
ing. Both  were  members  of  large  families  of  prosperous  work- 
people. None  of  the  relatives  of  either  had  any  quality  of  dis- 

1  Acta  Sanctorum  :   Vita  S.  Cat.,  870  B,  871  B,  872  B. 

2  Vita,  903  E,  964  F,  921  A. 


APPENDIX.  369 

tinction.  At  an  early  age  both  girls  had  sensations  of  sight 
and  of  hearing  which  were  not  felt  by  their  companions.  Both 
were  intensely  religious.  The  parents  of  both  tried  to  hinder 
their  obedience  to  the  heavenly  vision.  Both  stood  before 
kings,  and  were  not  ashamed.  In  the  language  of  Catherine 
may  be  found  an  assurance  not  unlike  that  which  is  so  charac- 
teristic of  Joan.  Both  were  inspired  by  the  most  unselfish  zeal. 
St.  Catherine  undoubtedly  is  the  perfect  type  of  the  sainted 
woman  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  many  have  supposed  that  the 
same  type  is  exemplified  in  Joan  of  Arc. 

The  difference  between  the  two  women,  however,  was  consid- 
erable, both  in  body  and  mind.  Joan  was  a  sturdy  peasant 
girl  of  good  physique  and  sound  constitution,  keeping  her  health 
in  spite  of  severe  bodily  and  mental  distress.  Catherine  was 
very  frail,  always  ailing,  and  for  many  years  unable  to  digest 
her  food,  that  which  was  originally  self-mortification  having  be- 
come at  last  a  disease.  Worn  to  a  skeleton,  she  died  before  she 
was  thirty-five.  The  ecstasies  of  Catherine,  in  which  she  saw 
her  visions  and  heard  her  voices,  have  been  described  by  more 
than  one  eye-witness.  She  used  to  fall  into  a  swoon  or  trance, 
and  was  utterly  unconscious  of  what  went  on  about  her,  even 
when  spoken  to,  or  shaken ;  her  body  became  quite  rigid,  and 
seemed  so  brittle  that  her  friends  feared  she  would  break  in  two 
if  handled  roughly.  Precisely  what  was  Joan's  appearance 
when  her  voices  spoke  to  her  is  not  known ;  no  one  has  de- 
scribed it  particularly,  but  this  very  fact  shows  that  it  cannot 
have  been  extraordinary.  Among  her  neighbors  at  Domremy, 
while  she  was  waiting  at  Vaucouleurs,  Chinon,  and  Poitiers,  on 
her  campaigns,  in  prison  at  Beaurevoir,  and  many  times  a  day 
at  Eouen,  even  before  her  judges,  Joan's  voices  spoke  to  her 
when  curious  people  were  watching  her,  and,  if  her  visions  had 
been  accompanied  by  any  physical  disturbance,  this  certainly 
would  have  been  recorded. 

The  mental  difference  between  the  two  women  was  quite  as 
considerable.  Catherine  was  an  extreme  ascetic.  The  monk 
who  wrote  her  life  was  undoubtedly  credulous,  but  when  ample 
allowance  has  been  made  for  his  exaggerations,  there  remains 
a.  true  story  of  ingenious  self-torture.  As  a  child  she  flogged 
and  starved  herself.  When  a  little  older,  she  plunged  herself 


370  APPENDIX. 

into  hot  water.  She  constructed  for  herself  a  bed  on  which  sleep 
most  have  been  painful,  and  fastened  a  chain  about  her  waist 
next  to  her  skin,  in  order  to  guard  against  passions  which  in 
her  must  have  been  imaginary.  Ordinary  neatness  she  con- 
sidered a  sin,  and  she  was  in  great  distress  because  she  believed 
herself  to  love  her  sister  too  much.  The  punishments  which 
she  inflicted  on  herself  for  shrinking  from  loathsome  disease 
cannot  be  told,  they  are  themselves  so  loathsome.1 

Joan  was  not  an  ascetic  at  all.  As  marked  holiness  was  then 
considered  impossible  without  self -mortification,  some  of  Joan's 
admirers  tried  to  make  her  out  an  ascetic,  but  they  had  scant 
success.  She  kept  the  fasts  of  the  church,  was  moderate  in  eat- 
ing and  drinking,  and  loved  constantly  to  pray,  that  was  all. 
The  archbishop  of  Rheims  was  able  to  complain  of  her  wearing 
fine  clothes,2  a  complaint  which  could  not  have  been  brought 
against  Catherine  by  her  most  mendacious  enemy.  Perhaps  the 
contrast  between  the  two  women  appears  most  strongly  in  the 
vows  of  virginity  made  by  both.  Like  every  one  else  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  Catherine  believed  that  virginity  was  necessary  to 
the  saintliness  for  which  she  longed,  and  while  she  was  yet  a 
child  she  made  her  vow  accordingly.  Joan's  beliefs  were  the 
same  as  Catherine's,  but  she  thought  comparatively  little  of  her 
own  saintliness ;  it  was  impossible  for  a  married  woman  to  do 
the  work  appointed  her  by  heaven,  and  so  she  vowed  to  remain 
single  until  the  work  was  done.  "  The  pious  girl,"  so  wrote 
Catherine's  biographer,  "  knew  that  a  scanty  diet  and  abstinence 
from  food  and  drink  were  most  useful  and  perchance  even  in- 
dispensable to  the  keeping  of  her  maidenhood."  3  Joan's  vir- 
ginity, being  a  practical  necessity  and  not  a  counsel  of  perfec- 
tion, needed  no  such  support.  When  Joan  was  disheartened 
she  did  not  pine  for  the  shelter  of  a  convent ;  she  longed  only 
to  go  back  to  the  valley  of  the  Meuse  and  the  life  of  a  peasant 
girl  in  her  father's  house.  Catherine  would  have  thought  such 
a  longing  earthly  and  gross,  utterly  unworthy  one  who  desired 
to  lead  a  saintly  life,  and  Joan  would  probably  have  agreed  with 
her,  for  Joan  had  no  thought  of  becoming  a  saint,  or  even  of 

1  Vita,  872  F,  876  F,  877  D,  F,  879  D,  878  F,  888  D,  873  D,  E, 
901,  902,  898. 

2  See  P.  v.  168.  3  Vita,  960  E. 


APPENDIX.  371 

leading  a  life  especially  holy.     She  had  been  bidden  only  to 
save  France  from  the  English. 

Both  Catherine  and  Joan  were  utterly  obedient  to  their  voices, 
and  quite  unselfish,  but  Catherine  was  morbidly  self-conscious, 
while  Joan  hardly  thought  of  herself  at  all.  Catherine  was 
willing  to  be  damned  to  save  others.1  Joan  could  not  have  un- 
derstood the  idea,  and  so  far  as  she  could  have  understood  it, 
would  probably  have  thought  it  blasphemous.  Catherine  con- 
tinually bewailed  her  faults  in  the  most  exaggerated  language. 
"  I  know  it  is  a  sign  of  a  well-disposed  mind,"  wrote  her  bio- 
grapher, "  to  discover  a  fault  where  there  is  none,  and,  where  the 
fault  is  slight,  greatly  to  exaggerate  it."  2  This  is  a  fair  state- 
ment of  the  ascetic  theory,  and  from  that  sort  of  "  well-disposed 
mind  "  Joan  was  free.  Her  sin  in  trying  to  take  her  own  life 
at  Beaurevoir  she  treated  with  a  fairness  almost  judicial.  Only 
when  she  had  been  led  to  deny  her  voices,  and  so  to  give  the  lie 
to  God  himself,  did  she  show  the  remorse  which  Catherine  daily 
exhibited  on  no  provocation  whatever.  Catherine  was  fond  of 
telling  her  confessor  about  her  visions,  which  generally  concerned 
some  special  favor  or  privilege  granted  her  by  Christ,  her  heav- 
enly spouse.  Joan  said  little  to  any  one  about  her  voices,  even 
to  her  confessor ;  only  when  it  was  necessary  to  accredit  herself 
and  to  accomplish  her  mission  did  she  speak.  There  can  be 
small  doubt  that  the  little  which  she  did  tell  her  judges  was  told 
in  the  hope  of  convincing  even  them.  That  Joan  was  humbler 
than  Catherine  is  not  true,  —  no  one  could  think  more  meanly 
of  herself  than  did  Catherine ;  but  Joan  thought  wholly  of  other 
matters.  From  an  agony  of  self-abasement  Catherine  passed  to 
ecstatic  visions,  in  which  she  received  the  stigmata,  or  the  ring 
which  was  the  proof  of  her  marriage  to  Christ,  or  a  new  heart 
in  place  of  her  old  one,  having  been  literally  heartless  for  a  day 
or  two.  Nothing  can  be  more  remote  than  all  this  from  the  vi- 
sions of  Joan  ;  these  concerned  almost  altogether  the  work  which 
she  was  called  upon  to  do.  Between  the  language  of  Catherine 
and  that  of  Joan  the  difference  is  so  great  that  no  criticism  can 
describe  it ;  it  can  be  appreciated  only  by  reading  both.  To  turn 
from  one  to  the  other  is  like  passing  from  a  greenhouse  into  the 
forest,  from  the  Imitatio  Christi  to  the  New  Testament.  Cath- 

1  Vita,  866  A.  2  Vita,  873  D. 


372  APPENDIX. 

erine  undoubtedly  had  a  morbid  mind  in  a  diseased  body.  Un- 
less her  visions  be  conclusive  proof  of  disease,  Joan's  mind  and 
body  alike  were  healthy. 

D.  THE  PKOPOSED  CANONIZATION  OF  JOAN  OF 

ARC. 

IN  1869  Mgr.  Dupanloup,  bishop  of  Orleans,  delivered  the 
annual  sermon  on  Joan  of  Arc,  and  expressed  the  hope  that  she 
might  be  canonized.  Immediately  afterwards,  twelve  French 
bishops,  who  had  been  present  at  the  sermon,  addressed  a  lettei 
to  Pope  Pius  IX.,  praying  that,  after  proper  investigation,  can- 
onization might  be  granted.  Bishop  Dupanloup  was  thereupon 
requested  to  make  preliminary  inquiry  in  the  usual  form ;  but 
the  Franco-German  war  intervened,  and  the  inquiry  was  post- 
poned until  1874-76,  when  the  depositions  of  many  witnesses 
were  taken,  principally  regarding  the  reputation  for  holiness 
enjoyed  by  Joan  in  various  parts  of  France  for  centuries.  The 
result  of  this  inquiry  was  forwarded  to  Rome,  and  was  referred 
by  the  pope  to  Cardinal  Bilio.  Further  explanation  was  asked 
of  Bishop  Dupanloup,  but,  before  he  could  reply,  he  died,  Octo- 
ber 11,  1878.  His  successor,  Bishop  Coullie',  continued  Bishop 
Dupanloup's  efforts  and  made  many  visits  to  Rome.  He  also 
directed  a  second  preliminary  inquiry,  in  which  the  testimony 
taken  at  Joan's  two  trials  and  other  historical  evidence  were 
formally  authenticated.  Pope  Leo  XIII.  seems  to  have  inter- 
ested himself  somewhat  more  in  the  matter  than  did  Pius  IX., 
and  the  proper  Roman  tribunal  proceeded  with  its  usual  delib- 
eration to  the  further  investigation  of  the  case. 

On  January  27,  1894,  the  congregation  of  Sacred  Rites,  on 
the  report  of  Cardinal  Parocchi,  voted  to  recommend  that  the 
commission  for  the  introduction  of  the  case,1  so  called,  should  be 
signed,  which  was  immediately  done  by  the  pope.  This  action 
is  the  first  step  toward  canonization,  and  confers  upon  Joan  the 
title  of  "  Venerable." 

The  desire  for  Joan's  canonization  in  France  has  become  na- 
tional, at  least  among  devout  Catholics  ;  and,  even  among  those 
ordinarily  indifferent  to  the  Catholic  church,  patriotism  has 

1  "  Commissio  introductionis  causse  servse  Dei  Joannse  d'Arc." 


APPENDIX.  373 

largely  taken  the  place  of  a  religious  motive,  and  has  led  some 
to  make  of  Joan's  canonization  almost  a  national  political  ques- 
tion. This  feeling,  of  course,  will  insure  a  reasonably  speedy 
and  a  sympathetic  consideration  of  the  question  by  the  Roman 
tribunal.  What  will  be  the  final  decision  is  quite  another  mat- 
ter.1 

1  See  Sejourne",  La  canonisation  de  J,  •  ib.,  Proces  de  Vordinaire 
relatif  a  la  beatification  et  canonisation  de  J.  •  Ricard,  J.  la  Venera- 
ble, 272  ;  Coehard,  La  cause  de  J.  •  Lecoy,  Culte  de  J.  •  Beaudeau, 
Analyse  de  Vouvrage  du  Pape  Benoit  XIV.  sur  les  beatifications  et  can- 
onisations, in  Migne,  Theologies  Cursus,  viii.  854. 


INDEX. 


ABBEVILLE,  172. 

Agincourt,  battle  of,  5,  21,  25. 

Alain,  James,  assists  Joau,  43 ;  goes  with 
her  to  Nancy,  46. 

Albi  sends  help  to  Orleans,  91. 

Albret,  Charles  of,  184  ;  at  siege  of  St. 
Pierre  le  Moustier  and  La  Charite',  ib. 

AlenQon,  11. 

Alenc.on,  John,  duke  of,  118,  121,  123,  130, 
133,  234,  352 ;  comes  to  court,  58  ;  is 
friendly  to  Joan,  59  ;  present  at  Joan's 
interview  with  Charles  VII.,  61 ;  receives 
Joan  at  St.  Florent,  71  ;  given  the  com- 
mand of  the  army,  119  ;  at  siege  of  Jar- 
geau,  125  ;  opposed  to  the  treaty  with 
Burgundy,  170 ;  at  the  attack  on  Paris, 
175  ;  removed  from  the  command,  180  ; 
wishes  to  attack  Normandy,  ib. 

Alexander  VI.,  Pope,  183. 

Amiens,  172. 

Anjou,  80. 

Arc  en  Barrois,  19. 

Arc,  Catherine  of,  20. 

Arc,  Isabel  of,  mother  of  Joan,  19,  49,  72 
n.,  345  ;  at  the  rehabilitation,  351. 

Arc,  Jacquemin  of,  20,  23,  345. 

Arc,  James  of,  father  of  Joan,  26,  36  ;  his 
position,  19,  23 ;  does  not  interfere  with 
Joan  after  she  leaves  Domremy,  48  ;  at 
the  coronation,  156  ;  his  death,  345. 

Arc,  Joan  of.     See  Joan  of  Arc. 

Arc,  John  of,  20 ;  joins  Joan,  73  ;  recog- 
nizes Claude  as  his  sister,  345 ;  at  the  re- 
habilitation, 351. 

Arc,  Peter  of,  20,  73,  345,  351. 

Armagnacs,  the,  4,  6,  7,  9,  24,  25,  145,  176, 
229,  249. 

Armagnac,  Bernard,  count  of,  4,  5,  301. 

Armagnac,  Thibaud  of,  352. 

Armoises,  Robert  of,  347. 

Army,  its  organization  in  the  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, 79. 

Arras,  167,  169,  208,  210  ;  treaty  of,  344. 


Arras,  Franquet  of.  See  Franquet  of  Ar- 
ras. 

Articles,  the  seventy,  read  to  Joan,  300 ; 
the  twelve,  306,  308. 

Artois,  78. 

Ascension,  Feast  of,  102. 

Assessors  at  Joan's  trial,  260,  265,  274, 
281,  283,  297,  299,  305,  308,  314,  316,  326, 
332. 

Aulon,  John  of,  Joan's  squire,  72, 101  ;  at 
Joan's  capture,  219  ;  at  Beaulieu,  236  ; 
testifieskat  the  rehabilitation,  353,  354. 

Auxerre,  83  ;  Joan  passes  through  it,  51 ; 
it  refuses  to  admit  Charles  VII.,  147. 

Avignon,  Mary  of,  prophesies  Joan's  com- 
ing, 68. 

Aymery,  examines  Joan  at  Poitiers,  66. 

Azay  le  Rideau,  72  n. 

BAILLY,  NICHOLAS,  makes  inquiries  con- 
cerning Joan  at  Domremy,  253. 

Banner,  Joan  of  Arc's,  75,  195,  288. 

Bar,  Duchy  of,  15,  16,  17,  22,  24. 

Bar,  Louis,  duke  of,  21. 

Bar,  Robert,  duke  of,  237. 

Barre',  John,  Joan's  godfather,  20. 

Barrette,  Bartholomew,  with  Joan  at  Com- 
piegne,  215. 

Basset,  John<  one  of  the  assessors,  311. 

Baudricourt,  Robert  of,  captain  of  Vau- 
couleurs,  21,  32,  35,  39  ;  sends  Joau  back 
to  Burey,  40  ;  sends  her  to  Chinon,  47- 
49. 

Beauce,  the,  97, 126. 

Beaugency,  82,  95,  100, 115  ;  siege  and  cap- 
ture of  by  the  French,  129. 

Beaulieu,  Joan  brought  to,  225 ;  tries  to 
escape  from.  236. 

Beaupere,  John,  examines  Joan,  269,  271, 
277  ;  directed  to  visit  Joan  in  her  cell 
after  her  recantation,  329. 

Beaurevoir,  Joan,  taken  to,  237 ;  she  jumps 
from  one  of  its  towers,  241,  263,  298. 


376 


INDEX. 


Beauvais,  253  ;  drives  out  its  bishop,  171, 
230. 

Bee,  abbot  of,  321. 

Bedford,  duchess  of,  her  death,  344. 

Bedford,  John,  duke  of,  regent  of  France, 
8,  25,  68,  81,  114,  160,  226;  marches 
against  Charles  VII.,  165  ;  publishes  a 
manifesto  against,  166  ;  at  the  battle  of 
Monte'pilloy,  167  ;  retreats  to  Paris,  168  ; 
goes  back  to  Normandy,  169 ;  made  a 
canon  of  Rouen,  254  ;  his  death,  344. 

Bellier,  William,  at  Chinon,  57. 

Black  Prince,  the,  2. 

Blois,  97  ;  Joan  goes  to,  from  Tours,  76 ;  ex- 
pedition leaves,  95. 

Boisguillaume,  William,  notary  at  Joan's 
trial,  261. 

Bonny,  143  ;  surrenders  to  the  French, 
144. 

Bordeaux,  2,  12. 

Boucher,  Charlotte,  102, 352. 

Boucher,  James,  treasurer  of  the  duke 
Orleans,  99. 

Boucher,  Madame,  101. 

Bouilk-,  William,  commissioned  by  Charles 
VII.  to  make  inquiry  concerning  Joan's 
trial,  349,  353. 

Bourges,  83,  112 ;  Joan  at,  181,  185  ;  sends 
money  for  the  siege  of  La  Charitt5,  190. 

Bourlemont,  lords  of,  15,  17,  18,  27. 

Boussac,  John  of,  lord  of  St.  Severe, 
marshal  of  France,  88,  92,  121,  187,  244. 

Brabant,  Philip,  duke  of,  his  death,  239. 

Bray,  165. 

Bre'hal,  John,  his  part  in  the  second  trial, 
350. 

Brittany,  11, 199. 

Brittany,  John,  duke  of,  8,  11,  78,  173, 
199. 

Bueil,  John  of,  142. 

Burey,  Little,  or  Burey  en  Vaux,  14,  37. 

Burgundians,  the,  25,  228. 

Burgundy,  11. 

Burgundy,  John  the  Fearless,  duke  of,  3, 
4,  229  ;  his  murder,  7,  25. 

Burgundy,  Philip  the  Bold,  duke  of,  3. 

Burgundy,  Philip  the  Good,  duke  of,  7,  9, 
21,  25,  33,  91,  229,  231  ;  his  policy  after 
Patay,  146  ;  goes  to  Paris,  160 ;  negoti- 
ates with  Charles  VII.  after  the  conse- 
cration, 167  ;  makes  a  truce  with  him, 
170  ;  made  governor  of  Paris,  ib.  ;  gath- 
ers an  army,  202 ;  besieges  Gournay, 
209  ;  goes  to  Uoyon,  and  then  besieges 
Choisy,  210  ;  besieges  Compiegne,  215; 
his  interview  with  Joan  after  her  cap- 


ture, 220 ;  writes  to  St.  Quentin  about 
the  capture,  226 ;  takes  possession  of 
Brabant,  239  ;  made  lieutenant-governor 
of  eastern  France  by  the  English,  252. 

CALAIS,  2, 160. 

Calixtus  III.  authorizes  Joan's  second  trial, 
351. 

Campaign  of  the  Loire,  review  of,  136. 

Canonization,  proposed,  of  Joan  of  Arc, 
372. 

Castillon,  John  of,  archdeacon  of  Evreux, 
makes  address  to  Joan,  312. 

"  Castle  of  the  Island,"  23. 

Catherine  of  La  Rochelle.  See  La  Ro- 
chelle. 

Cauchon,  Peter,  count,  bishop  of  Beauvais, 
229 ;  negotiates  for  Joan's  purchase,  230, 
238 ;  demands  that  she  be  given  up  to 
the  English,  232,  238;  goes  to  Beaure- 
voir,  240 ;  letter  of  the  University  of 
Paris  to,  246 ;  selected  to  preside  over 
Joan's  trial,  249 ;  intends  to  get  a  con- 
fession from  her,  251 ;  directs  inquir- 
ies concerning  her  to  be  made  at  Dom- 
remy,  252  ;  his  relations  with  the  chapter 
of  Rouen,  254 ;  receives  permission  from 
the  chapter  to  try  Joan  in  Rouen,  255  ; 
English  deliver  Joan  to  him,  255  ;  his  feel- 
ing toward  her,  256  ;  opens  his  court  for 
her  trial,  260  ;  holds  the  first  public  ses- 
sion, 264;  examines  Joan  in  her  cell, 
283  ;  visits  her  on  Easter  Eve,  305  ;  re- 
fers her  answers  to  experts,  308  ;  his 
change  of  feeling  toward  her,  310  ;  asks 
her  to  submit  her  case  to  those  of  her 
own  party,  313;  threatens  her  with 
torture,  315 ;  at  the  recantation,  322  ; 
blamed  by  the  English,  325  ;  his  plan  for 
killing  Joan,  327  ;  visits  her  after  her  re- 
cantation, 329 ;  holds  sitting  of  court 
in  which  she  is  finally  condemned  to 
death,  331  ;  his  plan  for  securing  a  sec- 
ond confession  from  her,  332  ;  visits  her 
in  her  cell  on  the  morning  of  her  execu- 
tion, 335 ;  his  heirs  cited  to  appear  at 
Joan's  rehabilitation,  355. 

Ceffonds,  19. 

ChSlons  surrenders  to  Charles  VII.,  153. 

Champagne,  11,  16  n.,  78  ;  condition  of  the 
province,  145. 

Chapter  of  Rouen.    See  Rouen,  chapter  of. 

Charles  II.     See  Lorraine,  duke  of. 

Charles  V.,  2. 

Charles  VI.,  his  character,  3  ;   his  death,  8. 

Charles  VII.,  5,  12,  24;  his  character,  8, 


INDEX. 


377 


55,  357  ;  his  coat  of  arms,  29  ;  receives 
Joan  at  Chinon,  57  ;  encouraged  by  her, 
CO  ;  goes  to  Poitiers,  65 ;  makes  little 
effort  to  relieve  Orleans,  88 ;  informed 
of  its  relief,  114  ;  leaves  Chinon,  116  ;  at 
Loches,  118 ;  at  Sully,  128,  141  ;  before 
Troyes,  150  ;  consecrated,  157  ;  makes  a 
truce  with  Philip  of  Burgundy,  170  ;  or- 
ders retreat  from  Paris,  176 ;  makes  no 
attempt  to  ransom  Joan,  233,  244,  248 ; 
makes  truce  with  the  English  in  1444, 
345  ;  captures  Rouen,  349 ;  takes  steps 
for  Joan's  rehabilitation,  349. 

Chartier,  William,  bishop  of  Paris,  one  of 
the  judges  at  Joan's  rehabilitation,  351. 

Chartres,  81. 

Chartres,  Regnault  of,  archbishop  of  Rheims 
and  chancellor  of  France,  54,  165,  207 ; 
at  the  siege  of  Troyes,  149 ;  at  Com- 
piegne,  210 ;  writes  to  Rheims  about 
Joan's  capture,  221. 

Chateauneuf,  Charles  VII.  goes  there,  141. 

ChSteau  Thierry,  Charles  VII.  at,  163. 

Ch^cy,  98. 

Chinou,  50  ;  Joan  arrives  there,  53; 
Charles  VII.  leaves,  116. 

Choisy,  its  situation,  209  ;  its  siege  and  sur- 
render, 210,  214. 

Church,  Joan's  submission  to,  See  Joan  of 
Arc. 

Cities  of  France,  their  condition,  2, 12. 

Clairoix,  215,  218  ;  Joan  at,  220,  225. 

Claude,  the  false  Maid,  her  first  appear- 
ance ;  she  is  recognized  by  Joan's  bro- 
thers, 345;  sends  to  Charles  VII.  and 
Orleans,  346  ;  goes  to  Cologne,  ib. ;  mar- 
ries Robert  of  Armoises,  347 ;  leaves 
him  and  goes  to  Orleans,  ib. ;  finally  ex- 
posed, 348. 

Clermont,  Charles  of  Bourbon,  count  of, 
177,  180 ;  commands  the  French  at  the 
battle  of  the  Herrings,  89  ;  resigns  his 
command,  193. 

Colet  of  Vienne,  a  royal  messenger,  goes 
with  Joan  from  Vaucouleurs  to  Chinou, 
48,  53. 

Commercy,  Robert  of  Saarbruck,  lord  of, 
21,  23 ;  at  the  consecration,  158. 

Compiegne,  178,  208 ;  Charles  goes  to, 
169 ;  treaty  made  at,  170  ;  situation  of, 
in  the  spring  of  1430,  206  ;  refuses  to  sur- 
render to  Philip  of  Burgundy,  207  ;  Joan 
at,  210,  216 ;  siege  of,  215,  240 ;  news  of 
siege  brought  to  Joan,  236  ;  relief  of, 
244. 

Corbie,  172. 


Cosne,  143. 

Coudray,  tower  of,  Joan  lodged  in,  54. 

Coudun,  215,  220. 

Council  of  Charles  VII.  discusses  what  to 
do  after  the  fall  of  Orleans,  55 ;  discusses 
Joan's  case,  59,  61,  65,  67;  advises 
Charles  VII.  to  make  use  of  her,  68. 

Council,  English,  its  composition,  228. 

Council  of  war  at  Orleans,  102. 

Courcelles,  Thomas  of,  a  delegate  of  the 
University  of  Paris,  300  ;  votes  to  tor- 
ture Joan,  316 ;  testifies  at  the  rehabili- 
tation, 353. 

Coutes,  Louis  of,  Joan's  page,  72,  102 ; 
sees  Joan  at  Chinon,  60  ;  testifies  at  the 
rehabilitation,  353. 

Cre"py,  Charles  VII.  at,  167  ;  Joan  at,  215. 

Culant,  Louis  of,  admiral  of  France,  takes 
Bonny,  144. 

DAUPHIN,  Joan  applies  the  name  to  Charles 
VII.,  35,  148  n. 

Dauphiny,  78,  91 ;  prayers  offered  for  Joan 
in,  234. 

Domremy,  14,  15,  18,  23,  26,  263  ;  its  gov- 
ernment, 19  ;  church  of,  29,  33 ;  attack 
upon,  in  1425,  27  ;  in  1428,  32,  33  ;  exempt 
from  taxation,  156  ;  inquiry  concerning 
Joan  at,  by  the  English,  252  ;  evidence 
for  rehabilitation  taken  in,  261. 

Dress,  Joan  of  Arc's,  39,  47,  140,  217,  237, 
263,  273,  281,  290,  325,  328,  330,  338. 

Duguesclin,  Bertrand,  2,  120. 

Dupanloup,  bishop  of  Orleans,  desires  that 
Joan  of  Arc  should  be  canonized,  372. 

EDWARD  III.,  2. 

England,  more  centralized  than  France, 
2,79. 

Erard,  William,  330 ;  preaches  the  sermon 
at  St.  Ouen,  321. 

Erault,  John,  examines  Joan  at  Poitiers, 
68. 

Estates  of  France,  meet  at  Chinon,  83. 

Estivet,  John  of,  285,  296,  298,  306,  318  ; 
made  prosecuting  attorney,  261 ;  perse- 
cutes Joan,  274  ;  insults  her,  311  ;  his 
reported  death,  343. 

Estouteville,  cardinal  of,  353 ;  his  part  in 
the  second  trial,  350. 

FASTOLF,  SIR  JOHN,  123,  128,  131 ;  com- 
mands at  battle  of  the  Herrings,  90  ;  es- 
capes from  Patay,  135. 

Feuillet,  Gerard,  delegate  of  the  University 
of  Paris,  283. 


378 


INDEX. 


Fierbois.    See  St.  Catherine  of  Fierbois. 

Flanders,  6, 11,  78. 

Flavy,  Louis  of,  captain  of  Choisy,  escapes 
to  Compiegne,  214. 

Flavy,  William  of,  captain  of  Compiegne, 
206 ;  his  part  in  Joan's  sortie,  217. 

Fountain,  the  magic,  273. 

Fournier,  John,  curate  of  Vaucouleurs,  ex- 
orcises Joan's  spirit,  41. 

France,  its  condition,  1 ;  condition  of,  in 
the  spring  of  1428,  78. 

Frauquet  of  Arras,  his  capture  and  execu- 
tion, 204. 

GASCONY,  78. 
Gatinais,  78. 
Gaucourt,  Raoul  of,  lord  of  Treves,  85,  92, 

104, 120, 176,  352  ;  commands  at  Orleans, 

85 ;  injured,  86. 
Ge"vaudan,  221. 
Gien,   91  ;  Joan  passes  through  it  on  her 

way  to  Chinon,  52  ;    rendezvous  of  the 

army,  142  ;    army  returns  to,  179  ;  the 

court  at,  181. 
Glasdale,  William,  commands  at  Tourelles, 

86, 100 ;  drowned,  110. 
Golden  Fleece,  order  of,  founded  by  Philip 

of  Burgundy,  208. 
Gough,  Matthew,  commands  at  Beaugency, 

129 ;  surrenders,  133. 
Gournay  surrenders  to  Burgundy,  209. 
Grasset,  Perrinet,   captain  of  La  Charite", 

182, 191. 
Graverent,     John,    inquisitor -general    of 

France,  264 ;  authorizes  Lemattre  to  take 

part  in  Joan's  trial,  285. 
Greux,  14,  15,  16  n.,  17  n.,  18  n.,  23;   ex- 
empt from  taxation,  156. 
Guyenne,  78. 

HARCOTTBT,  CHRISTOPHEK  OF,  119. 

Henry  IV.,  5. 

Henry  V.,  5 ;  his  death,  8. 

Henry  VI.,  8 ;  letter  of  the  University  of 

Paris  to,  247. 

Herrings,  battle  of,  48,  52,  58,  63  n.,  90. 
Hussites,  293;    Joan's   letter    concerning 

them,  197. 

INDICTMENT  of  Joan,  259. 

Informatio  prseparatoria,  296. 

Inquisition,  the,  257,  260,  264. 

Insanity  or  inspiration  of  Joan  of  Arc, 

364. 
Isabeau  of  Bavaria,  wife  of  Charles  VI., 

mother  of  Charles  VII.,  6,  38,  61. 


JANVILLE,  captured  by  English,  82 ;  English 
army  at,  129 ;  English  army  leaves,  131 ; 
retaken  by  the  French,  135. 

Jargeau,  82,  85,  115,  119,  123,  190  n.,  199 ; 
capture  of,  126. 

Joan  of.Arc,  not  the  type  of  her  age,  1 ;  spell- 
ing of  her  name,  19 ;  birth,  baptism,  and 
education,  20 ;  first  vision,  28 ;  physi- 
cal health,  31 ;  life  as  a  girl,  ib.;  personal 
appearance,  34  ;  pretended  betrothal,  34  ; 
not  an  ascetic,  34  ;  directed  to  go  to  Vau- 
couleurs, 35  ;  leaves  Domremy,  37  ;  goes 
to  Vaucouleurs  for  the  first  time,  39 ; 
sees  Baudricourt,  40 ;  visits  Vaucouleurs 
a  second  time,  ib.  ;  her  conversation  with 
John  of  Metz,  42  ;  visits  Lorraine,  Nancy, 
and  St.  Nicholas  du  Port,  43-46;  puts 
on  men's  clothes,  45  ;  returns  to  Vaucou- 
leurs from  Lorraine,  46 ;  leaves  Vaucou- 
leurs for  Chinon,  49,  62  n. ;  admitted  to 
see  Charles  VII.,  57  ;  examined,  58,  60, 
65  ;  asks  him  to  surrender  his  kingdom 
to  God,  59 ;  reveals  a  secret  to  him,  61 ; 
examined  at  Poitiers,  65 ;  her  letter  to 
the  English,  68,  269  ;  the  extent  of  her 
mission,  70,  158;  leaves  Poitiers  and 
goes  to  Chiuon  and  St.  Florent,  71; 
sends  for  sword  from  St.  Catherine  of 
Fierbois,  74;  her  banner,  75;  goes  to 
Blois,  76  ;  report  on  her  examination  at 
Poitiers,  77  n.  ;  tries  to  improve  the 
morals  of  the  army,  94, 155  ;  her  entrance 
into  Orleans,  98 ;  summons  the  English 
to  surrender,  100;  the  attack  on  St. 
Loup,  101 ;  captures  the  Augustines,  104 ; 
attacks  the  Tourelles,  107 ;  wounded, 
108 ;  declines  to  attack  Talbot  before 
Orleans,  111;  goes  from  Orleans  to 
Tours,  116 ;  at  Loches,  118 ;  meets  the 
Lavals,  121 ;  takes  Jargeau,  126 ;  receives 
Richemont,  130 ;  at  the  battle  of  Patay, 
135 ;  her  military  success,  126 ;  returns 
to  Orleans  after  Patay,  139;  dresses  in 
bright  colors,  140 ;  goes  to  Sully,  141  ; 
writes  to  the  people  of  Tournai,  143  ; 
starts  for  Rheims,  144  ;  writes  to  the 
men  of  Troyes,  148 ;  at  the  siege  of 
Troyes,  150  ;  her  position  in  the  army, 
154 ;  legend  of  her  wish  to  return  home 
after  the  consecration,  159 ;.  writes  to 
Philip  of  Burgundy,  161  ;  at  the  battle  of 
Montdpilloy,  167;  goes  to  St.  Denis,  174; 
attacks  Paris,  175 ;  returns  to  St.  Denis, 
177  ;  leaves  her  armor  there,  178  ;  wishes 
to  attack  Normandy,  180 ;  goes  to  Bour- 
ges,  181 ;  takes  St.  Pierre  le  Moustier, 


INDEX. 


379 


187 ;  meets  Catherine  of  La  Rochelle, 
188  ;  at  the  siege  of  La  Charite,  190  ;  at 
Mehun  on  the  YSvre,  193 ;  her  letter 
about  the  Hussites,  197 ;  leaves  court, 
200  ;  her  capture  foretold  by  her  voices, 
201 ;  captures  Franquet  of  Arras,  204  ; 
prays  for  a  child  at  Lagny,  205,  280; 
goes  to  Compiegne,  210 ;  at  the  battle 
of  Pont  1'Evgque,  212 ;  leaves  Com- 
piegne for  Soissons,  213 ;  at  Cre'py, 
215 ;  returns  to  Compiegne,  216 ;  her 
sortie,  217,  captured,  219;  taken  from 
Clairoix  to  Beaulieu,  225  ;  French 
make  no  attempt  to  ransom  her,  233 ; 
prayers  offered  for  her  release,  234 ; 
at  Beaulieu,  236 ;  meets  the  ladies 
of  Luxemburg,  237  ;  and  Haiinond  of 
Macy,  238 ;  purchased  for  ten  thou- 
sand pounds,  239,  243 ;  at  Le  Crotoy, 
246  ;  English  wish  to  try  her  for  a  witch, 
248  ;  taken  to  Rouen,  250 ;  arrangements 
for  her  trial,  255;  brought  before  the 
court,  265  ;  controversy  about  the  form 
of  her  oath,  26(5,  270  ;  fasts  during  Lent, 
268,  271 ;  her  allegory  concerning  the 
sign  at  Chinon,  270,  284,  286;  asked  if 
she  is  in  God's  graoe,  272 ;  accused  of 
practicing  magic,  273,  287 ;  visited  by  a 
spy,  275  ;  her  expected  release,  279  ;  her 
dress,  281 ;  some  of  the  assessors  inclined 
to  favor  her,  282  ;  asked  concerning  the 
murder  at  Montereau,  289 ;  examined 
concerning  her  dress,  290,  298  ;  her  sub- 
mission to  the  church,  293,  294,  305, 
318  ;  a  faithful  Catholic,  293  ;  her  prayer 
to  her  voices,  304 ;  falls  ill,  309 ;  refuses 
to  submit  her  case  to  those  of  her  own 
party,  313  ;  threatened  with  torture,  315 ; 
her  state  of  mind  previous  to  her  recan- 
tation, 319  ;  brought  to  St.  Ouen,  320 ; 
defends  the  character  of  Charles  VII., 
321  ;  urged  to  submit  to  the  church, 
322 ;  signs  the  recantation,  323  ;  puts  on 
women's  clothes,  325  ;  her  remorse  for 
her  recantation,  327 ;  her  treatment 
thereafter,  328 ;  explains  her  recanta- 
tion, 330 ;  visited  on  the  morning  of  her 
execution,  333 ;  receives  the  Eucharist, 
338  ;  her  execution,  341 ;  its  effect  upon 
those  who  saw  it,  342 ;  her  rehabilitation, 
349  ;  her  inspiration  or  insanity,  364 ; 
her  proposed  canonization,  372. 
Jurisdiction  of  Cauchon  over  Joan,  253. 

KIRKMICHAEL,  JOHN,  bishop  of  Orleans,  52, 
91 ;  at  the  consecration,  157. 


j  LA  CHAPELME,  174. 

La  ChariW,  143,  183  ;  siege  of,  190. 

Ladvenu,  Martin,  343 ;  visits  Joan  in  her 
cell  on  the  morning  of  her  execution, 
334 ;  hears  her  in  confession  and  admin- 
isters the  Eucharist,  338  ;  with  Joan  at 
her  execution,  339  ;  testifies  at  second 
trial,  349. 

La  Fontaine,  John  of,  Cauchon's  commis- 
sary, 261 ;  examines  Joan,  283,  286. 

La  Hire,  Stephen  of  Viguolles,  called, 
22,  25,  55,  56,  94,  98,  105,  125, 134,  167, 
234,  313. 

Languedoc,  7,  78,  173. 

Lannoy,  Hugh  of,  councilor  of  Philip  of 
Burgundy,  173. 

Laon,  surrenders  to  Charles  VII.,  160. 

La  Pierre,  Isambard  of,  a  Dominican  friar 
in  attendance  on  the  vice-inquisitor,  285, 
343 ;  with  Joan  at  her  execution,  339 ; 
testifies  at  her  second  trial,  349. 

La  Rochelle,  sends  money  for  the  cam- 
paign, 76 ;  sends  help  to  Orleans,  91 ; 
celebrates  the  victory  of  Patay,  140. 

La  Rochelle,  Catherine  of,  188,  194,  281; 
testifies  against  Joan,  302. 

La  RochetaUlee,  John  of,  archbishop  of 
Rouen,  254. 

La  Rousse,  woman  with  whom  Joan  lived 
at  Neuf  chateau,  32. 

La  Touroulde,  Margaret,  Joan  stays  with 
her  at  Bourges,  181. 

La  Tremoille,  George  of,  11,  12,  54,  59, 117, 
130,  199,  207,  221,  313,  361 ;  takes  Chinon 
in  pledge,  55 ;  bargains  with  the  English 
for  the  safety  of  his  property,  83 ;  for- 
bids Richemont  to  come  to  court,  139; 
his  estates  to  be  given  to  Richemont, 
173 ;  success  of  his  policy,  180 ;  taken 
prisoner  by  Grasset,  183;  his  dislike  _of 
Joan,  234 ;  his  final  removal  from  power, 
343. 

Laval,  Guy  of,  129, 157,  174 ;  his  letter,  120. 

Laval,  Andrew  of,  120. 

Laxart,  Durand,  37-41 ;  comes  to  Rheims, 
156 ;  testifies  at  the  rehabilitation,  352. 

Le  Crotoy,  Joan  at,  246,  248,  250. 

Le  Mac.on,  Robert,  119;  advises  summon- 
ing Joan  to  the  council  of  war,  150. 

Lemaitre,  John,  vice-inquisitor,  refuses  to 
take  part  in  Joan's  trial,  264 ;  authorized 
to  take  part  in  it,  285. 

Le  Puy  en  Velay,  72  n. 

Le  Royer,  Catherine,  Joan's  hostess  at 
Vaucouleurs,  41 ;  testifies  at  the  rehabil- 
itation, 352. 


380 


INDEX. 


Le  Royer,  Henry,  41  n. 

Le  Vauseul,  Joan,  cousin  of  Joan  of  Arc,  37. 

Ligny.     See  Luxemburg,  John  of. 

Loches,  Charles  and  Joan  go  from  Tours 
to,  118. 

Loire,  the  river,  78. 

Loiseleur,  Nicholas,  visits  Joan  as  a  spy, 
275 ;  votes  to  torture  her,  316 ;  visits 
her  in  her  cell  on  the  morning  of  her 
execution,  333. 

London  lends  money  for  the  campaign  of 
1428-29,  79. 

Longueville  Giffard,  prior  of,  332. 

Lorraine,  16. 

Lorraine,  Charles  II.,  duke  of,  11,  22,  44, 
269 ;  Joan  visits  him,  43. 

Lorraine,  John  of,  a  gunner,  89,  105,  190  n. 

Louviers,  234  n. 

Luxemburg,  Joanna,  demoiselle  of,  237, 
239,  243. 

Luxemburg,  Joanna  of,  wife  of  John  of,  237. 

Luxemburg,  John  of,  count  of  Ligny,  224, 
231 ;  commands  the  Burgundians  and 
Flemings  at  Clairoix,  215 ;  sends  Joan 
to  Beaurevoir,  237  ;  left  in  charge  of  the 
siege  of  Compiegne,  239 ;  sells  Joan  to 
the  English,  243 ;  at  the  relief  of  Com- 
piegne, 244 ;  visits  Joan  in  prison,  274. 

Luxemburg,  Louis  of,  bishop  of  The'rou- 
anne,  321  ;  negotiates  for  Joan's  pur- 
chase, 226 ;  at  her  execution,  342. 

Lyons,  11. 

MACT,  HAIMOND  OF,  354;  with  Joan  at 
Beaurevoir,  238,  240 ;  visits  her  in  prison, 
274. 

Maine,  11,  78. 

Maine,  Charles  of  Anjou,  count  of,  344,  361. 

Manchon,  William,  notary  at  Joan's  trial, 
261,  342  ;  objects  to  the  confusion  at  the 
trial,  268 ;  refuses  to  take  extrajudicial 
testimony,  275 ;  testifies  at  second  trial, 
349. 

Mandragora,  301. 

Margny,  215, 220 ;  attack  of  Joan  upon,  217. 

Mary  of  Anjou,  queen  of  France,  142. 

Mascon,  John  of,  99. 

Massieu,     John,     sergeant    of    Cauchon's  ' 
court,  261,  285. 

Maurice,  Peter,  a  canon  of  Rouen  and  one 
of  the  assessors,  addresses  Joan,  318 ; 
visits  her  on  the  morning  of  her  execu- 
tion, 333. 

Maxey,  14,  16  n.,  18  n.,  21,  26. 

Mehun  on  the  Tgvre,  castle  of,  193,  196. 

Melun,  Joan  at,  201 ;  Joan  leaves,  202. 


Metz,  345,  347. 

Metz,  John  of,  56,  72 ;  visits  Joan,  42  ;  goes 

with  her  from  Vaucouleurs  to  Chinon, 

48-53 ;  testifies  at  the  rehabilitation,  353. 
Meung,  82,  95,  100,  115,  128;  capture  of, 

by  the  French,  129 ;  retaken  by  Talbot, 

132. 

Meuse,  the  river,  14  ;  valley  of,  21,  22,  31. 
Midi,  Nicholas,  delegate  of  the  University 

of  Paris,  283,  329 ;  preaches  the  sermon 

at  Joan's  execution,   339;  his    reported 

death,  343. 

Miuet,  John,  curate  of  Doruremy,  20. 
Mont  St.  Michel,  abbey  of,  29. 
Mont  St.  Michel,  abbot  of,  321. 
Montargis,  79,  147. 
Mont6pilloy,  battle  of,  167. 
Montereau,  7,  25 ;  Bedford  at,  166. 
Montesclar,  provost  of,  252. 
Montfaucon,  190  n. 

Montgomery,  an  English  captain,  212,  215. 
Morel,  Aubert,  one  of  the  assessors,  votes 

to  torture  Joan,  316. 

NANCY,  Joan  goes  to,  43. 

NeufchSteau,  Joan  at,  32,  33. 

Nicholas  V.,  350. 

Nrvernais,  province  of,  78. 

Nobility  conferred  on  Joan's  family,  194. 

Nogent,  170. 

Normandy,  1,  11,  25,  78  ;  Alen§on's  plan  to 
attack,  180 ;  Estates  of,  convened  to  ar- 
range for  Joan's  purchase,  239 ;  feeling  of 
the  people  in,  towards  the  English,  249, 
254. 

Norwich,  bishop  of,  321. 

Noyon,  Philip  of  Burgundy  at,  210. 

Noyon,  John  of  Mailly,  bishop  of,  321. 

OATH,  controversy  concerning  form  of,  at 
Joan's  trial,  266,  270. 

Old  Market  of  Rouen,  place  of  Joan's  exe- 
cution, 338  ;  proclamation  of  Joan's  in- 
nocence in,  356. 

Olivet,  95. 

Olivier,  Richard,  bishop  of  Coutances,  takes 
part  in  the  rehabilitation,  351. 

Orleans,  13  ;  siege  of  34,  36 ;  plan  for  attack- 
ing, 81 ;  situation  of,  84  ;  expedition  for 
the  relief  of,  sets  out,  95 ;  army  enters, 
101  ;  people  of,  wish  to  assault  the  Tou- 
relles,  106 ;  festival  of  the  eighth  of  May 
established  at,  111  ;  situation  of,  after  its 
relief,  115  ;  Joan  returns  to,  123,  128  ;  re- 
joices after  the  battle  of  Patay,  140  ;  its 
conduct  regarding  the  false  Maid,  346 ; 


INDEX. 


381 


procession  in,  after  Joan's  rehabilitation, 
35C. 

Orleans,  bishop  of.  See  Kirkmichael,  John. 

Orleans,  Charles  duke  of,  4,  67,  71,  81. 

Orleans,  Joan  of,  duchess  of  Alengon,  71. 

Orleans,  John,  bastard  of,  afterwards  count 
of  Dunois,  55,  81,  91,  134,  150,  165,  234. 
352 ;  commands  the  garrison  of  Orleans, 
52,  87  ;  sends  officers  to  Chinon,  52  ;  his 
first  interview  with  Joan,  %  ;  at  the  cap- 
ture of  the  Tourelles,  108, 116. 

Orleans,  Louis,  duke  of,  3  ;  his  murder,  4. 

Orly,  Henry  of,  his  attack  upon  Domremy, 
27,28. 

PARIS,  mob  of,  4 ;  taken  by  Burgundians, 
5,  7,  11 ;  in  the  hands  of  the  English,  64 ; 
news  of  the  battle  of  Patay  reaches,  139  ; 
attack  upon,  175,  263;  plot  to  deliver 
it  to  the  French,  198;  as  a  place  for 
Joan's  trial,  248 ;  capture  of,  345. 

Pasquerel,  John,  Joan's  confessor,  72  ;  tes- 
tifies at  the  rehabilitation,  353. 

Patay,  battle  of,  134. 

Peace,  effect  of  negotiations  for,  172. 

Perche,  11,  78. 

Pe>onne,  208. 

Picardy,  6,  11,  78. 

Pierronne,  a  woman  of  Brittany,  burnt  at 
Paris,  247. 

Poitiers,  its  situation  and  importance,  64  ; 
Joan  goes  there,  65  ;  leaves  it,  71 ;  report 
of  Joan's  examination  at,  77  n. 

Poitou,  1,  142. 

Pont  1'EvSque,  battle  of,  212. 

Pont  Ste.  Maxence,  208,  209. 

Pothon  (see  Saintrailles),  56. 

Poulengy,  Bertrand  of,  43,  56,  72;  goes 
with  Joan  from  Vaucouleurs  to  Chinon, 
48-53  ;  testifies  at  the  rehabilitation,  353. 

Power,  Heliote,  her  marriage,  196. 

Praguerie,  the,  362. 

Prayers  offered  for  Joan,  234. 

Prison,  ecclesiastical  and  secular,  267. 

Proof,  theory  of,  259. 

Provence,  12. 

Provins,  Charles  VII.  at,  163,  165. 

RABATEAU,   JOHN,   196 ;  Joan  lives  in  his 

house  at  Poitiers,  65. 
Raymond,  Joan's  page,  72. 
Rais,  Giles  of,  marshal  of  France,  92,  116. 
Ransom,  methods  of,  223. 
Ratisbon,  197. 

Recantation  signed  by  Joan,  323. 
Rehabilitation,  sentence  of,  355. 


Ren<5  of  Anjon,  duke  of  Bar,  11,  22,  167, 
177  ;  his  relations  with  Lorraine  and  the 
English,  44,  46 ;  at  the  consecration,  158. 

Rheims,  35  ;  correspondence  between  it  and 
Troyes,  147  ;  welcomes  Charles  VII.,  154  ; 
Charles  VII.  writes  to,  178  ;  Joan  writes 
to,  198. 

Rheims,  archbishop  of.  See  Chartres,  Reg- 
uault  of. 

Richard  II.,  4. 

Richard,  Friar,  a  Franciscan,  meets  Joan 
at  Troyes,  152  ;  supports  Catherine  of  La 
Rochelle,  188,  281. 

Richemont,  Arthur  of  Brittany,  count  of, 
constable  of  France,  10,  54,  117,  130,  343, 
360, 362 ;  arrives  at  Beaugency,  130  ;  with- 
draws from  the  campaign  after  Patay,  139. 

Romorantin,  121,  123. 

Rouen,  25 ;  plots  to  surrender  to  the 
French,  172';  confinement  of  Joan  hi,  250 ; 
castle  of,  250 ;  taken  by  Charles  VII.,  349. 

Rouen,  chapter  of,  254 ;  deliberates  on 
Joan's  guilt,  312. 

Rouvray,  battle  of.   See  Herrings,  battle  of. 

SAINTBAILLES,  POTHON  OF,  56,  210. 
Salisbury,  Thomas  Montagu,  earl  of,  80,  82  ; 

death  of,  86. 

Scales,  Thomas,  Lord,  69,  87,  128. 
Seguin  examines  Joan  at  Poitiers,  66. 
Selles,  120,  181. 
Senlis,   167 ;    occupied    by    French,    169 ; 

Charles    VII.   goes   there,   174 ;  French 

withdraw  to  it,  214. 
Sept  Saux,  castle  of,  154. 
"  Skinners,"  22. 
Soissons,  164;  receives  Charles  VII.,  163; 

refuses  to  admit  French,  213. 
Sologne,  the,  52,  102, 124. 
Sorel,    Agnes,  her  relations  with   Charles 

VII.,  357,  363. 
St.  Aignan,  120. 

St.  Catherine,  28, 29 ;  manner  of  her  appear- 
ance to  Joan,  287, 331. 
St.   Catherine  of  Fierbois,  120,  278 ;  Joan 

passes  the  night  there,  and  hears  mass 

in  the  church,  53 ;  she  sends  there  for  a 

sword,  73. 

St.  Catherine  of  Siena,  368. 
St.  Denis,  near  Paris,  345  ;  Joan  goes  there, 

174  ;  French  leave  it,  178. 
St.  Denis  on  the  Loire,  124. 
St.  Fargeau,  146  n. 
St.  Honor^,  gate  of,  175. 
St.  Loup,  bastille  of,  97  ;  captured,  102. 
St.  Marcoul,  abbey  of,  163. 


382 


INDEX. 


St.  Margaret,  manner  of  her  appearance  to 

Joan,  28,  29,  287,  331. 
St.  Michael,  28,  341. 

St.  Nicholas  du  Port,  visited  by  Joan,  46. 
St.  Ouen,  cemetery  of,  the  place  of  Joan's 

recantation,  320. 
St.  Pierre  le  Moustier,  183. 
St.  Quentin,  172,  226. 
St.  Kemy,  157. 
St.  Roch,  church  in,  175. 
St.  Saviour,  church  of,  339,  341. 
St.  Severe.     See  Boussac. 
St.  Urbain,  Joan  passes  through  it,  50. 
Stafford,  earl  of,  274. 
Stewart,  an  English  captain,  212. 
Submission  to  the   church  by  Joan.     See 

Joan  of  Arc. 
Suffolk,  William  Pole,  earl  of,  67,  68,  87, 

115, 124. 
Sully,  83  ;  court  goes  to,  196  ;  Joan  leaves, 

200. 
Surienne,  Francis  of,  captain  of  St.  Pierre 

le  Moustier,  183. 
Sword,  Joan   of  Arc's,   74,   278 ;  broken, 

155. 

TALBOT,  JOHN,  Lord,  69,  106, 114, 128,  13.1 ; 

commands  the  army  which  besieges  Or- 
leans, 87  ;  raises  the  siege  of  Orleans,  110  ; 

retreats  from  Meung  towards  Janville, 

133  ;  captured  at  Patay,  135. 
The'rouanne.    See  Luxemburg,  Louis  of. 
Three  Fountains  Brook,  15,  17  n. 
Torcenay,  John  of,    bailiff  of  Chaumont, 

makes  inquiries  concerning  Joan,  252. 
Torture,  259 ;  Joan  of  Arc  threatened  with, 

315. 

Toul,  15,  16  n.,  34,  46. 
Tourelles,  the,  84,  85, 100,  105  ;  capture  of, 

107. 
Tournai,  78  ;  Joan  writes  to  the  people  of, 

143. 
Tours,   64,   196;  Joan   goes  there,  72;  it 

sends  help  to  Orleans,  91. 
Toutmouille',   John,    visits    Joan    in    her 

cell  on  the  morning  of  her  execution, 

334. 
Tree,  fairy,  273. 


Trial,  difference  between,  in  English  and 

French  law,  257. 

Troyes,  siege  and  surrender  of,  147. 
Troyes,  treaty  of,  7,  8,  21,  145. 
Truce  with  Burgundy,  161,  170,  182,  202. 

UNIVERSITY  OP  PARIS,  248,  261 ;  urges  Jo- 
an's purchase,  227 ;  writes  to  Philip  of 
Burgundy  and  John  of  Luxemburg,  231  ; 
writes  to  Cauchon  and  to  Henry  VI., 
246  ;  its  judgment  concerning  Joan,  316  ; 
assists  in  exposing  the  false  Maid,  347. 

Ursins,  John  Juvenal  des,  takes  part  in  the 
second  trial,  351. 

VATK,  the  river,  14. 

Vaucouleurs,  21,  35,  39,  252 ;  siege  of,  in 
1428,  32  ;  its  people  assist  Joan,  47  ;  date 
of  Joan's  departure  from,  62  n. 

Vaudemont,  Antony,  count  of,  27,  28. 

VendSme,  Louis  of  Bourbon,  count  of,  193, 
210  ;  brings  Joan  into  the  presence  of 
Charles  VII.,  57  ;  before  Soissons,  213. 

Venette,  215,  218. 

Vergy,  Antoine  de,  33  n. 

Vienne,  the  river,  53. 

Vignolles,  Stephen  of.    See  La  Hire. 

Virginity,  Joan's,  34,  288,  370. 

"Voices"  of  Joan  of  Arc.  See  Joan  of 
Arc. 

Vouthon,  19. 

WANDONNB,  LIONEL,  bastard  of,  232,  239 ; 

and  Joan's  capture,  219,  224. 
Warwick,  earl  of,  309,  321  ;  forbids  Esti- 

vet  to  go  to  Joan's  cell,  311  ;  complains 

of  Cauchon's  conduct,  325. 
Wiclif,  293.  . 

Winchester,  Henry  Beaufort,  cardinal  of, 

164,  309,  320. 
Witchcraft,  Joan  naturally  supposed  guilty 

of,  227. 
Wiirtemberg,  Ulrich,  count  of,  346. 

YOLANDB,  duchess  of  Anjou,  mother-in-law 
of  Charles  VII.,  9,  117;  comes  to  Poi- 
tiers and  examines  Joan,  67 ;  raises 
money  for  the  campaign,  76. 


. 


